Jehochman
 Archives |
|---|
Why?
construct deep linking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coetzeen
I dont understand why this is raising a SPAM issue?
There is no external links pointing or and to the article. This is a brand new technique of taking "rich user experience" and "organic search" and combining the two by using the CDL implementation. It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites. I shared all the technical specifications in order to assist the general public with this knowledge. If there is any way I can improve the article, I am open to suggestions. Is not benefiting any organisation nor is it promoting any product, CDL is just a name that was given to it.
Regards, --Coetzeen 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, you have just admitted that this is original research. Second, you are writing about yourself, which is a conflict of interest. And third, you have added inappropriate external links to your site. I recommend you read these guidelines carefully, and consider joining the mentorship program. No hard feelings, please. This is the way things work here. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching
There's an interesting situation that could use a sockpuppet investigation. Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#G2bambino_wikistalking. I'm dropping word with a few of my trainees about this. DurovaCharge! 06:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching
If you're interested in putting in some sysop-like work, have a look at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. It's got 31 open cases including a long list of bot-identified probable vanity articles. The board could really use some extra help and much of it doesn't need the tools. Drop me a line if something needs a block. Regards, DurovaCharge! 14:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Uber
Per your comment at 3RR: you may be interested in Wikipedia:Editor review/UBeR William M. Connolley 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Civility
Yeah, you're right, I got rather pissed off by that article. I've left an apology on the guy's talk page. Thanks, I'll be more tactful in future. mattbuck 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove it all ...
You may as well remove all links to beeradvocate being that we are just spamming and trying to make a buck off of wiki. Let the wiki beer project know as well. Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer#Templates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalstromer (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
conflicts
I suggest that when you do edit an article dealing with someone you consult for, to make a note of it on the article talk page. DGG 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that tip, David G. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
problem edits
hi, my wife was told a recent contribution was inappropriate
but cant figure out how to find out which one!
Beer links and WP:EL
I've gone over the externl links policy twice and I don't see where the links to BeerAdvocate, RateBeer or Quaffale fail it in any way. While I do post to beeradvocate.com sometimes I'm not any sort of poobah on the site, and I have no particular interest in promoting them or anything else; they're just useful resources that include information beyond what would be considered notable in the articles.
In mentioning general notability you raise a point which has been raised, discussed, and resolved a few months ago; we held a lot of discussions with people arguing strongly on both sides but consensus seems to clearly be that a wide swathe of breweries notable under WP:N and indeed two that I've written articles on (Bryncelyn Brewery and Wye Valley Brewery) have not only survived review by the broader Wikipedia community but gone onto WP:DYK.
With regard to the current debate, I humbly submit that User:Jalstromb, while enthusiastic, is rightly miffed that BeerAdvocate was moved, then deleted. That speedy simply should not have happened; the move was done by a user who's made broad unilateral changed before, and nobody caught it in time to discuss it. I can understand why at first glance some of the editing Wikiproject:Beer has been doing might seem reactionary, but it seems to happen every so often that someone will make lots of changes to a large number of articles without any discussion whatsoever; in the case of the BeerAdvocate links in particular, a user deleted a number of the links, then when prompted for an explanation said that the site had been blacklisted but could not produce any evidence to that effect whatsoever. Given incidents like that, I think we're right to be on our guard. --Stlemur 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've just reverted a deletion of links you made to Wye Valley Brewery; I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how it could be argued that the links aren't fully acceptable, in particular in light of:
- Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
- An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
- Sites that contain neutral and ) accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
- Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
- These sites include things like contact information, photographs, reviews, and more complete beer lists than can be practically included in the article. --Stlemur 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am motivated by the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL. These may apply to this particular set of external links:
- Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
- Links mainly intended to promote a website.
- Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
- You'll notice that iPod does not link to any social networking/rating sites, such as C|Net, even though C|Net is much more notable than BeerAdvocate. I won't edit war with you, but I will report this to WP:WPSPAM so other editors can help us resolve the matter. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am motivated by the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL. These may apply to this particular set of external links:
- I don't think anyone's asserted that the sites should be linked to because some of them have social networking content; if anyone is linking to the fora rather than to the beer pages, those should be removed forthwith. In terms of unique information, though, the sites are very often more complete and up-to-date than the brewery websites; many large brewers produce beers that they don't promote at all (e.g. Hardy & Hanson's Mild) and so never appear in official literature or websites, while small ones often don't have sites or other publications, or don't update what they have. For me, at least, the cataloging aspect of these sites is far and away more important than the rating aspect or anything else. What's more, I think we can both agree that including the level of detail provided on the outside pages -- beer alcohol by volume, monthly availability, serving styles available, and so on -- would be beyond what would reasonably be provided in a featured article.
- As for including the suite of three or four, yes, sometimes they are somewhat redundant with one another. In the case of BeerAdvocate versus RateBeer, as User:Jalstromb points out it would look biased to only include one site or the other (the two are fierce competitors); in the case of a site like QuaffAle, its information is updated more frequently for UK breweries than either RateBeer or BeerAdvocate, but it doesn't have any beer lists. While I agree we shouldn't include all four sites if they all include exactly the same information, most of the time that simply isn't the case. --Stlemur 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem, which I've seen before several times, is that your list of three good beer review sites will morph into a list of three good sites and 25 spammy MFA (Made for Adsense) sites. If you have that same list on hundreds of different beer articles, it's much harder to guard against this than if you put the list in one place. Also, why have links to three sites that provide essentially the same info. Wikipedia isn't a search engine. If somebody wants to know about a beer, they can just Google it. If the breweries don't list all their products, that's their own fault. Wikipedia isn't here to correct that. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the tips. i've finished playing now and will leave you alone.
Deletion of my article on Blade3D
Hello, my article on Blade3D was recently deleted without warning. I have tried to contact the admin who deleted it but so far have not received a response. I notice you left a message on my talk page regarding possible conflict of interest shortly before it was deleted so I was wondering if you were involved in the deletion process.
The article was a lot of work, written by myself and members of our community and the intention was to provide an objective, informative and unbiased view of the product from a technical perspective, not advertise. In fact the article was based on another article Softimage XSI, a well known 3D modeling system and our article maintained the same spirit. If you compare our article with the one for Visual3D.NET for instance I think you will agree that our article is an order of magnitude away from being advertising even though this other article survives.
I am not an experienced Wikipedian, but from a business perspective I'm sure you can appreciate it is important that a company maintain a presence on wikipedia if competitors also have content here. Perhaps in a perfect world no products would be in Wikipedia but the reality is far from this nirvana. We recognize the conflict and this is why we tried to make the content of our article technology related rather than blatant advertising. I might add that we have no objection whatsoever in changing the content of the article to be more compliant so that this does not happen again.
Anyway thanks for reading--Digini 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem you have is that you are completely ignoring Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you write about yourself, your own company or your own product. Please start at Wikipedia:Introduction and read through the basics. If your competitors are spamming Wikipedia, there are proper ways to report that so the community can remove those articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Doug Heil
I have no idea if I responded to you the right way, so I'll leave the same message here...
==============
It's a shameless promotion and I didn't delete the page. All I did was add a link to a page within wikipedia.
He is a douche bag and if you don't let other SEO's publish their info on wikipedia, then you don't need to allow that douche have a page on wikipedia either. He is NOT wikipedia worthy unless you will allow people to say what they really think of him.
Of course, I'm sure whoever this is editing this subject, you probably have your profile up to.
UPDATE: I stand corrected...you're not listed that I could find. But you have to admit, since you obviously know the guy, I'm not sure what purpose that page has being listed. It is not helpful to wikipedia at all. And if I somehow deleted the page, you have my personal apology, I did not try to delete it. I will admit to putting the link to wikipedia "douche bag" page.
I see you're speaking next week...can't wait to see who slapped my hand!
==============
In response to: Doug Heil
He's not my favorite SEO either, but that doesn't mean you can just delete his page. Next time you don't like a page, use proper procedures to get it reviewed. AntiVandalBot reverted your edits within seconds.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Doug Heil. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have answered on your talk page. Cheers! Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Akhilleus
 |
Jehochman, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, |
Callmebc
Thanks for handling the problem with User:Callmebc. I'd originally intervened and warned Callmebc about a number of issues. However, when he started insulting me I figured I'd better get another admin to look at the situation so I couldn't be accused of a conflict of interest. But you and DurovaCharge! were so on top of the situation that I didn't even get the chance to ask someone for assistance. Excellent work. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, don't mention it. I'm a Connecticut Yankee, by the way. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Callmebc has now posted a lengthy post on his talk page at User_talk:Callmebc#72_hour_block where he says he was setting a "a three-part, self-incriminating trap." Strange. Might want to check it out. --Alabamaboy 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I warned User:Andyvphil about that specific personal attack at User_talk:Andyvphil#Personal_attack_warning. B/c I cut User:Callmebc a ton of slack, I felt it would be unfair to block User:Andyvphil without first warning him. But if User:Andyvphil does even one more personal attack, I will block him for a while. Would you support that?--Alabamaboy 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 02:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I warned User:Andyvphil about that specific personal attack at User_talk:Andyvphil#Personal_attack_warning. B/c I cut User:Callmebc a ton of slack, I felt it would be unfair to block User:Andyvphil without first warning him. But if User:Andyvphil does even one more personal attack, I will block him for a while. Would you support that?--Alabamaboy 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Callmebc has now posted a lengthy post on his talk page at User_talk:Callmebc#72_hour_block where he says he was setting a "a three-part, self-incriminating trap." Strange. Might want to check it out. --Alabamaboy 14:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)