Would you mind reviewing my recent edits and saying what I've done good and bad? I've been editing when I get the time. I try to edit every day, but it doesn't always happen. Undead Warrior (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are doing fine. You have not been blocked, nor warned, and you picked up a barnstar. What sort of tasks would you like to do if you became an administrator? Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh where to start. I'd like to work in AfD, IfD, and CfD. (mainly afd) I also am big on image related stuff. (Copyvio images, no source, no FUR etc...) I'd get involved at the noticeboard. If you see my edits, I warn a lot of IPs and users for vandalism so I'm fairly knowledgeable about that already. Undead Warrior (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done any non-admin closes of AfD's? You can do that when there is a clear consensus to keep. If you've done that, did your decisions stick? Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that and they have stuck. I've done multiple closes when the consensus was delete and the admin forgot to close the AfD too. (the article was already deleted, I just closed it) I only would do a keep close if there were multiple keep !votes very quick with valid points, or if it was a bad faith nom of an article that really should never have been nominated. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, if I were to do an RfA now, would it turn favorable for me? Undead Warrior (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Let me do some more checking. Jehochman ^Talk 11:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman, it looks like the collapse of the WTC article is once again moving forward. So maybe I'm not needed after all. In fact, it looks like the editors who are working on it are taking it (rather quickly) in a direction that is, at least on some points, the opposite that I would take it in. I discussed this a bit with Aude to see if my presence would be constructive. The result was inconclusive. There also seem to be no takers for the suggestion you posted for me.

I'm grateful that you and John have taken an interest in my case again, but I want to emphasize that I'm not really interested in a "second chance". Advice would be much appreciated, but I'd come back only if I could convince the relevant authorities (even, say, you and Raul) that the ban itself was wrong. Otherwise I think we're just heading down a familiar road. Best, --Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may appeal the ban at WP:AE, but I don't see myself or Raul taking the position that the ban was improper. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what conditions would you support my return to editing? What do you expect me to do differently?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great essay: WP:DGAF. When you don't care about which side of a controversy "wins" you are the ideal editor for that topic. Try to remain detached. You might try raising a completely unrelated article to WP:GA or WP:FA quality. Jehochman ^Talk 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great essay indeed. Please also see my proposal at Thomas's talk. --John (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But where did you get the idea that I cared who won (and what struggle do you mean)? I was just interested in details. The other idea is interesting: I'm assuming you mean I should find an article about which I DGAF. But I thought the great thing about WP was that the articles would be written by wonks.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, our articles are better written by people who are knowledgeable but not passionate on the subject matter, as I said here. It is a difficult thing to achieve. --John (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm just too damned persnickety for Wikipedia. I'm willing to grant that it's a loss for both of us. Thanks for considering it. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving it a shot. [1]--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the COI issue and left a !vote on the AfD. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jehochman, I know you are watching the article and will act as you deem necessary. I hope my request for advice now does not jeopardise your neutral watching position.
It is just about a statement used by Meowy in his last comment, namely "And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors"". I feel this goes way beyond any type of normal discussion and is a very ugly hatred message. I wish to do something against it. There must be a wikipedia rule against such statements and users. Can you please advice me which venues ı can take? Cihsai (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help you. First step: would it be correct and possible for you to politely tell the other editor that you felt insulted by that edit summary and ask if they could avoid provocative edit summaries? Jehochman ^Talk 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...OK...have just now inserted something on the talk page of the article....BTW the "insult" mentioned is not on the edit summary but on the talkpage; section "present situation...Hemshin in Turkey".Cihsai (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just an update..i copy here parts of my insertion mentioned hereabove and part of the reply i have received.(the full texts contain also elements of the discussion i am trying to further; therefore i wished to highlight the parts related to my present approach to you....i have made the renewed insult by meowy bold characters)
=my statement:=
“Meowy, your statement [And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors”] is insulting and seems to reflect deplorable hatred against a nation. Your statement [You are attempting to do some whitewashing] is unpolite besides being wrong . You should refrain from using such agressive language....″
=the response:=
“...So I commented on how, in the real world, the public perception of his writings would compare to the perception of writings produced by academics in Turkey, who seem to regularly prostitute themselves and their profession.....″
I do hope there is a remedy for such user conduct.Cihsai (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a diff of the problematic remark. See links to the right for help on finding and gathering diffs. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I post herebelow 2 diffs for each of the problematic remarks in the talkpage. Please note that Meowy has at each instance made his edits in two steps ; so the diffs i provide are the comparison between my related entry and his last step.
[2] ; [3]
Thanks for the interest Cihsai (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment that should help prevent recurrences. Let me know if you experience further difficult communications, or feel free to request help at WikiQuette Alerts. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks,i hope your comment will suffice to prevent further events of that sort. Cihsai (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little postscript, if I may. I'm not sure how much knowedge of Turkey you have - so I should explain my "professor doctor" comment. In Turkey, most university teaching staff are called "professor doctors", i.e. most "professor doctors" are government employees at the beck and call of their employer. In a typical propaganda work (of which there are many) produced by or sponsored by the Turkish state there is usually a long list of authors having "Prof. Dr." in front of their names, (i.e. to call oneself a "professor doctor" is to use a title that has become discredited). My comment that several sentences written by Neil Ascherson (a writer and academic with considerable stature) would have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors" is actually factually correct. Meowy 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some knowledge of Turkey since I have visited Istanbul twice, as well as Adana and Iskenderun. I used to be a metals trader. If you explain things as politely as you have just now you will be more convincing and generate fewer complaints. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I am not convinced that wikification of some of those terms is a good idea.[4] The articles may not reflect what is intended, and they are certainly not written with behavioural management on Wikipedia as a purpose. Would you reconsider? Risker (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can revert me any time you like. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for self-reverting. I've had more than my fill of edit wars and convoluted discussions about that policy, it's a pleasant change to work with someone open-minded. Risker (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edits one by one. Our software now allows undoing prior edits, not just the most recent one. It is fantastic! Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your current additions/changes to the policy are fine, and unfortunately, needed. Cla68 (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jehochman. Can I send you an email later tonight regarding "me" per WBJScribe's suggestion? You've watched me for a long time, so know me. Although we have a lot of difference on several issues, I think you have an objectivity in dealing with people. I won't write a lengthy note, but I need honest opinion from you. But I just don't want others to read it (my every activities are recorded to my dear "stalking site"), so email would be a good place. Thanks.--Caspian blue 14:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing something in real life for the next 48 hours so my attention may be limited. In general, I think you should assume good faith, even when it is not deserved. That way you can maintain the moral high ground. More later, maybe. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I called you a ding-dong. I don't appreciate what you did to the Extraterrestrial Real Estate article. You were going good, then you decided to take the liberty to delete the "History of extraterrestrial claims" section ENTIRELY. This is why people read that article. The Outer Space Treaty article also covers just the argument and not the claims. As someone who has actually thouroughly, physically documented my own claim, I think your edit was entirely over the top.

Don't believe me? You can look me up on copyright.gov, damnit. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=faires%2C+wes&Search_Code=NALL&PID=z_WOI5yGJueHbD3S8olsvvkzo&SEQ=20081021155246&CNT=25&HIST=1

Now, I understand that some of these claims are unverifiable. But mine, and certainly Dennis Hope's (and I'm sure a few others with proper references) deserve at least a mention. Otherwise, you should find a table, turn it over, sit on one of the table legs and spin.

wes.faires (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I don't care that much about this article. If you want to revert something I did, I won't be offended. Please observe Wikipedia content policies. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you have worked very hard to be fair and honest, to maintain peace and integrity to Wikipedia, and I appreciate that a great deal. As for Charles Matthew's proposal - well, I reject 5 and 7 out of hand, they are simply there to provoke me and I will not engage further. 1 is a policy change and should be proposed on the policy talk page, should be proposed impersonally i.e. not in reference to any one case, and has to be discussed there. I find 2 non-controversial. 3 needs to be worded more strongly. 24 hours may be unreasonably restrictive, but there has to be a proportionate and reasonable amount of time for an appeal to be heard - for example if someone has been banned for life, they may have to wait a while for an appeal; someone blocked for 24 hours should have a right to appeal and have the appeal heard before the time-limit runs out. But in general, blocking administrators must be responsive to information requests. You cannot have power with no responsibility. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my proposals. He thinks they are too weak. You think they are too strong. This situation will probably go to dispute resolution, and hopefully the resolution will be fair to all. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need or any dispute resolution - yet. If you want to revise the block policy, follow normal procedure; make proposals on th pagel, let people discuss them. Only if there is a deadlock in discussion do we need dispute resolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.177.195 86.158.177.97 86.158.180.7 86.158.177.237 et al.

are making vandalism edits to several Pakistan- and Kashmir-related articles, implementing non-NPOV biases into the articles.

These articles include, but are not limited to, Wakhan Corridor Line of Control Jammu and Kashmir Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir Azad Kashmir Pakistan-administered Kashmir Ladakh States and territories of India Geography of India

Their reverts are continuous and un-ending but never close enough to be considered 3RR. What line of action should be followed. They made similar edits to Gandhara and were warned. All in all, pretty much none of these IPs edits are constructive. I hope something can be done to discipline this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please gather the list of IPs with diffs and an explanation at WP:SSP. You can leave me a link to the report and I will look. Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as long as Thegrey editor keeps pushing his indian POV in on Pak or azad kashmir i will not stop he continues to edit with biased POV terms such as POK used by many biased indian editors he also backs vandals such as kashmircloud so as long thegrey editor doesnt realize his Propaganda drive i will not stop reverting his POV edits 86.151.125.184 (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further more the greyeditor also removes the indian occupied label from jammu and kashmir article and then forces it upon azad kashmir without any conensus this is clearly POV him being biased himself he has no right to cry about POV just take a look at his edits and him removing the long standing IOK sentence in jammu and kashmir and then placing it on azad kashmir clearly POV 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring what the IP wrote above this entry, I am not quite sure if this IP vandal is a sock, I just know their actions are non-NPOV. Is there anyway this user qualifies for an IP block for anything other than sockpuppetry. I am maintaining Wikipedia articles as they were, while the IP is making biased, uncited edits. I can continue to play this game that the IP has started as long as my reverts don't approach 3RR violations, but it is getting annoying. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the grey editor im not quite sure if he realizes hes disrupting long time edits on jammu and kashmir and azad kashmir he seems to be fooling himself with the notion that hes the one keeping the articles maintained in there original form by adding POK and removing long standing edits on jammu and kashmir lol him and his sock kashmircloud are suspects i believe 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP violated 3RR on numerous occasions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Line_of_Control&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan-administered_Kashmir&action=history and then some

Tomorrow, I will report this IP for multiple 3RRs Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey hold on where you going grey 86.151.125.184 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You folks must use dispute resolution, not edit warring to resolve disagreements. Try WP:3O or WP:M. You may also try WP:NPOVN. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must realise that the grey editor is backing POV edits made by his sock kashmircloud he adds the propaganda term POK to azad kashmir and other articles whilst removing this very term on jammu and kashmir article anyways cheers86.153.131.239 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about getting you in this mess. In the past, you have helped me with IP socks, so I figured you would have been the guy to go to, but this IP vandal was just a jerk. The IP has been given a 24 hour for all the vandalism s/he committed, so I guess one can say they got away lightly. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If they return, then they will get blocked longer. The request for dispute resolution was meant for both parties. The IP obviously did not take my advice. I note that they made a frivolous accusation against you on this very page. Bear in mind we cannot block IPs indefinitely, and they seem to be using a range of them. The best case scenario is that they accept mediation of their disagreements, rather than pursuing disruptions. Blocks are definitely not a cure all. Jehochman ^Talk 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the user did violate their block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.162.66.35 They were reblocked

That is unfortunate, but perhaps not unexpected. Jehochman ^Talk 23:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat. They are already a suspected sock it seems. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied at my talk pg. --Googlean ^Results 10:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that, under "Old discussions" on the AfD main page, the item for October 18 shows that there are two open discussions for that day. These are both closed, and the note for October 18 needs to come off the AfD page now. How do I go about taking that off, or does a bot do it? SunDragon34 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a complete bungler when it comes to AfD. If the discussions are properly closed, I don't see anything wrong with cleaning them up if somebody didn't finish all the clerical details. Can you look at the page history to see what others have been doing, and follow the example? Jehochman ^Talk 15:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! SunDragon34 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you please warn this user that he has been accused of sock puppetry? His talk page is protected and I can't get to it. Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. As an indefinitely blocked user with a protected talk page, they are not going to respond on wiki. Feel free to email them a notice if their email is enabled and ask them to email any administrator if they wish to comment on their sock puppetry case. Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.151.100.255

They are making the exact same edits in other places now. ! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what consensus they are violating. Can you try leaving a talk message for the IP pointing them to the relevant discussion and ask them to follow it. Perhaps that will convince them to stop being disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are making POV edits reverted by several users over and over again. This user is not being rehab'd by their two blocks, they just keep edit warring. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits what do you mean im only adding the facts just like they are on pakistani mountains get over it grey editor your pov you cant bare to see the indian pages treated with the same sort of neutrality as they are in pakistani mountains you can do whatever you want 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the edits like "claimed by Pakistan" is so POV then i shall remove all the indian claims from pakistani mountains and thats final

Could you folks put together a request for comment at the relevant page and get an agreement about how to describe the region. Fighting with each other does no good at all. It will be much better to have a community discussion and form a consensus about naming conventions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at my edits no vandalism by me and no POV the sentence is all the same thing the grey editor as usual making a big fuss over nothing at all p.s im not fighting anyone he is cheers 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please provide facts grey editor when you rant about edit waring where have i edit warred seems to me you need antihypertensives to cool yourself down freind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehum. This is my talk page. At the top it says "no fighting". Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman if you get the time you can look at my edits and determine is there vandalism im only rephrasing the disputed claims to make them indentical on both pakistani and indian mountains 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not vandalizing. You might be edit warring if you repeat the edit after others object, and you might be disruptive if you run around making the same edit everywhere when other editors object. When somebody objects, you should stop and discuss your different opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same edits? im just rephrasing the same sentences and adding them to other pages to make them equal on both sides i.e same amount of disputed tags on indian and Pakistani mountains the grey editor doesnt like this because it means that mountains in indian administered kashmir also will have a equal amount of the footnote of "disputed" right now there overwhemingly on Pakistani mountains and absent from indian mountains and this is what irks him so much 81.151.100.255 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would be kind enough to block the account, since I can't. Also, I've responded to your question on my talk. Synergy 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Synergy 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something is very odd here. BG7 is unlikely to be a sockpuppet of anyone, and is more likely to have had his account hacked. Sock puppets don't tend to create wikiprojects or produce meaningful edits. While the evidence may point to it this requires detailed investigation. Same guy is an admin on Train Spotting World and a valued member there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been thoroughly investigated by a Steward. BG has been doing good hand bad hand socking in an effort to gain administrative access. The've done this on multiple WikiMedia projects. The unusual step of blocking them on all projects has been taken (a global lock). Jehochman ^Talk 11:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. What is a Steward? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

m:Stewards. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be rather more levels of grownups than any reasonable project needs. Quite a bureaucracy, really. Still, I expect you all know what you are doing and hawve all the access logs to prove it. Odd thing is he's a teenager who loves trams, but was silly enough to want to be an admin at WP. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Bg7 did one heck of a sockpuppeting job. So they're all the same person then? (Chris19910, Chemistrygeek, Bluegoblin7)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 17:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I reafirm that they are not the same person, I should know as I know enough about each of them and on one occasion talked to them both (via skype) simultaniously. Whos the steward again?   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for you Promethean and it is Spacebirdy on Meta. DoctorWhoandtheTardis (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't evidence, of course it isn't. But look here. Seems he was silly once. So obviously it makes sense to hang draw and quarter him. Seems to me that no schoolboy, studying hard for public exams, has any hope of being all those sock puppets. This is a teenage lad who loves trams, set up a wikiproject for it, has set up his own wiki to further his love of them, and now seems (not that I have any evidence) to be the victiom of an unspecified user's vendetta.

Frankly this stuff is the reason why I choose never to be an admin here. Too much odd stuff. I'll stick to editing. It seems to me that the lad has been blocked slightly bizarrely. You guys have all the evidence, somewhere. Time to look at it again, with no assumptions, as though it were new to all concerned. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes BG7 has had his mistakes (per the linky above) and he already had his ego badly slapped for that, noting he was open about it to his credit (Chris19910 woudnt have been). He is not a malicious editor, he loves wikipedia which is why he is very upset about this and quite frankly I would be too. Everyone can see he is a kid who goes to a school in the UK. Chris is in fact a university student in the UK, too very different people. As you can see there is severe doubt about him being Chris19910 or having GHBH. He has been aquited by an arbitrator before. When it is found that a mistake has been made I would expect nothing less of an apology of BG7's talkpage or via email from the insitgator of this farce for the emotional stress all this has caused, he has already felt the pinch by non-WMF projects because of this, which is out right un-fair to him. Lets put ourselves in the shoes of Chris19910, has he ever contested a sock block to the level Bluegoblin7 is? If the answer is no alarm bells should be going off.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (Note very little of this paragraph is directed at Jehochman)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Promethean. I recommend you not press any other users for apologies. Forcing an apology damages the value. This was a confusing situation where we had a Steward claiming something. I and others had no choice really but to take relied on their opinion at face value. Fortunately I followed up with a checkuser request and after a bit of a cock up myself in formatting the templates incorrectly, Sam Korn was able to lift the fog and reveal the truth of the matter. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jehochman, Im not demanding anything of anyone as Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word, However the jesture woudnt go un-noticed.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It is blasted easy to forget which templates to substitute and which not. It would be nice for there to be a switch in the template definition that would trigger auto-substitution. This is the sort of detail that should not be taking up space my brain's cache. Jehochman ^Talk 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my talk page and blocking that douche. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to let you know [5]. Thanks for your help on this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been of service in this very confusing situation. I am especially glad that I asked for Checkuser help. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate your suggestion, but I just do not understand ChrisO, ever since he has come on the scene disputes are popping out of places, I used to enjoy editing Wikipedia, now I feel like I always have to defend myself from Xerxes hordes. I just hope you can understand and tell him, because he is ignoring me. And please tell me if him and others [requesting a speedy deletion] for a potentially amazing and under construction article (which I update everyday) was a appropriate thing to do at this time. And whats the rush? There is dispute on Opis, and other articles worse than my article have not been edited for a year, so why come after my article so fast. And if you could tell me your stance on the existence of the Feb battle. Remember, they want me to go off the deep end, so I could get blocked, and they could proceed in the deletion of the article. I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Jehochman, it's an ordinary AfD, not a speedy, and even if Ariobarza were blocked (and he could have been), that shouldn't affect the AfD. I've asked Ariobarza for information about articles worse than his, and if there really are some as he claims with no text will happily speedy them. I've also been trying to explain to Ariobarza about his problematic OR, etc. for months and failing. Doug Weller (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seeks to educate the world. We accomplish this in several ways. Teaching is a wonderful profession because anything less than complete failure is a success. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think we've reached the end of the road with Ariobarza - not only does he apparently ignores the rules on OR, he doesn't seem to accept that the rules are needed in the first place. He also has a dreadful attitude towards other editors; the personal attack for which you rebuked him is only one of many he's made against me and other editors. I'll raise this shortly in the appropriate forum. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jehochman,

I am again approaching you on this entry, given that you seemed to be interested in keeping an eye on the entry.

As you might recall, I had earlier put an appeal on the WP:AE ( here) regarding the user Eupator's wholesale reverts, mentioning also that there were 3 other users who engage in wholesale reverts. One of these other users is user VartanM, who has just implemented another such wholesale revert. The reason he/she gives for this revert is that "there is no consensus". Just like the other 3, VartanM had blocked a mediation request I had filed upon page protection, and has not articulated a single comment relating to the content of the article to this day.

Please also have a look at the " About the Protect " section in the talk page for a brief summary of the development history of this entry, in case you are interested. As demonstrated by the talk page, these wholesale reverts basically take the entry to a version of more than a year ago, taking out a large amount of referenced material as well as undermining several months of discussions. Again, this user has not put forward any argument against the lead, history and groups sections which seem to be problematic for him/her. Such reverts also disrupt the ongoing discussions, such as the currently held relating to the "present situation" section.

The only thing I can do in such a case is to yet initialize another revert. Past experience shows that the mentioned users will take turns in wholesale reverting, avoiding discussions. I want to draw your attention to this situation and also ask for your guidence in this matter. Thank you.Omer182 (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a content dispute. Please file for mediation. That process will help reveal if there are any parties stonewalling. Those parties can be dealt with at arbitration enforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 16:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see to it.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

See his latest edit - the section on sources. He doesn't seem to be paying attention. Doug Weller (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I guess was a response to this: [6]. Doug Weller (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The time when it is most important to assume good faith is when you think it is least deserved. See my note there. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. But hard. Doug Weller (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at it this way. If you assume good faith and the other editor betrays you, that reflects very badly on them. If they respond nicely, you will be pleasantly surprised. Jehochman ^Talk 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by this:

Those of us here who have a clue, including our gracious host, know or can easily learn Cirt's history. You need not risk outing them further. Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? DaveApter (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, don't talk about user's prior identities when they have been targeted for harassment (by others). People change identities for a reason. Just because you might have figured out, does not mean everyone has. Jehochman ^Talk 19:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You commented on Ariobarza's talk page about his recent behaviour. Having reviewed his edits, I believe there are significant concerns that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza.

You also commented a while back on Tundrabuggy's wikistalking of myself. I have raised this as well, at WP:AN/I#User:Tundrabuggy.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]