User talk:Jehochman/Archives/25
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jehochman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hullaballo violating Wikipedia rules.
Excuse me. I would like to report an editor named "Hullaballoo" for intentionally damaging a page. I see you have had run ins with him before. Even though a page now contains Critical Commentary he has deleted all of the images on the page in clear violation of wikipedia rules. the page in question is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_L_Word_soundtracks
Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
- May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Jehochman/Archives!
Jehochman/Archives,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Being an admin is a heavy extra workload, and mediating disputes is almost never easy. Thanks for taking on the task! ~~--Tenebrae (talk)
Very bold merge
Hi, did you had a look at this discussion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planet_Nine_(2016_hypothesis) It appears that the two article you attempt to merge have a different scope. prokaryotes (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. But they are talking about the same damn object, so it should all be in one article. Humor me for a few minutes while I finish cleaning this up, and then criticize the result. Jehochman Talk 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should bring this up in above discussion. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I just did. We now have the advantage of being able to look at the merged article and decide whether its an improvement or not. I agree that anything out of scope could be moved to Nice Model. We also have to think about renaming to Planet Nine since that name has just received a huge, huge amount of press and is now the primary meaning of the term. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is also a talk page discussion (voting still open) for the move back to Planet Nine. prokaryotes (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- No rush on any of this. I recommend just letting people edit and see what is produced. Everything is saved in the page history. We need to explain how Brown was trying to disprove earlier theories and actually reinforced them. Those earlier researchers need to be identified in the article. Jehochman Talk 03:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there is also a talk page discussion (voting still open) for the move back to Planet Nine. prokaryotes (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I just did. We now have the advantage of being able to look at the merged article and decide whether its an improvement or not. I agree that anything out of scope could be moved to Nice Model. We also have to think about renaming to Planet Nine since that name has just received a huge, huge amount of press and is now the primary meaning of the term. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should bring this up in above discussion. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Articles should never be moved or merged without having a look at the talk page first. You should know better. Jonathunder (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- In this particular case it seemed that we had two articles about the same hypothesis. You see, as I've explained elsewhere Brown and colleague were working on the Nice model as well as trying to explain TNO orbits. They were very aware of all lines of research, and their recent publication is an extension of the earlier work. To me, it made zero sense to have two different articles, so I just stupidly merged them without looking. After all, there were no merge tags on the article, so there was no indication that any discussion was ongoing. Anyway, I'm quite stupid and recommend that you keep a close eye on me because I'm always breaking this rule or that when I try to make improvements to Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 03:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been wading through the mire of paid advocacy and SPA/sock "support" for this article, and I can't help thinking I should block someone/everyone. Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nah. The article is gone. Why play whack a mole. Just salt the article so it can't be recreated. Jehochman Talk 00:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)