Ok, sorry I was unclear about the terms. Here is a diff of his deletions, and here is a link to the diff of 2 changes that I made: first reverting his deletion, then I deleted the last paragraph of the section because it is an unreasonable method to break a quantum encryption protocol, for reasons I specified in the talk section.

Also, I'm not very good at making links, as you can probably tell. How would i make an internal link to that diff page?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got to be honest, I'm not real impressed with Wikipedia's mediation policy. It's been a week since i raised this issue and since then the article has been edited a bunch of times despite the erroneous change that I dispute. I am better off, it seems, to just get into an edit war with someone rather than come to an admin for a thid opinion. Is this what all mediation is like?--MaizeAndBlue86 (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Help! Vietnam War article

Hi Jehochman, I'm concerned about the user CompScientist's recent edits to the Vietnam War page - please have a look. Thank you! twinqletwinqle (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Jehochman, can you please take a look at a short essay that I have written about this topic User:Igorberger/Conflict of interest. I know we talked about this at lengh at AN when the issue was brought up by one editor about 3 months ago, but it keeps creeping back to us. Should we not have some sort of official policy or guidelines to avoid any problems or false accusations that may develop because of the misperseption of what constitutes WP:COI. There are many consultants, lawyers and other professional editors on Wikipedia. Do we just go on a witch hunt and start hanging all of them? This could be a serious problem unless we define some guiddelines as to what is permisable by the community and what is not. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

MC

Thanks, I got distracted by the WP:RTV issue, the block is now in place. Dreadstar 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiCommonSense

I invite you to add ] on your user page because you are one of the WikiCommonSense editors. If many editors edit in such matter we will be more productive and worry less about vandalism and other disruptive issues at Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You have put a completely incorrect interpretation of the RfCU on the article probation page. Unprovoked/RDOlivaw/DrEightyEight are one user, that's old old news. There was no connection made between this user and MC or The Tutor, nor was a connection proven between MC and The Tutor. MC is being vanished, per his own request. The Tutor is not blocked. You should correct this ASAP. —Whig ( talk ) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies was just nominated for AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Search_Engine_Strategies You may want to comment on it. Igor Berger (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Randy B

You are either a truly lovely man or are choosing to protect an editor that shouldn't be protected. You chose to delete my comment to him in which I expressed concern that he mis-quoted me; in other words, he put into quotes a statement in which he said that I made (but didn't). I personally do not think that such editors should be protected. Other people should see that he seemingly showing bad faith on wikipedia. Then, another editor chose to defend Randy B by saying that I was "baiting" him. "Baiting" does not mean expressing concern about making quotes up out of thin air. My concern was real, and yet, for unknown reasons, you and other editors are protecting/defending an editor that perhaps should not be protected or defended...or worse, perhaps you are choosing to be complicate in these shenanigans. I want to AGF. Please tell me why I should. DanaUllman ^Talk 23:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Your posts to my user talk were a little confusing at first. Then I realized you might have thought it was a surprise. If you like, tell Danny I can bring in Virgil Griffith too. Durova ^Charge! 04:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeh akuse

I just looked at Jsmith_51389's contribs and compared them to those of Jeh akuse ... you're not the only one who hears quacking. Dunno if a checkuser would do any good ... last time Jsmith edited was in December '07. I have to admit, though, I was this close to deleting the unblock template and locking down his userspace ... the "request" was clearly abusive. Blueboy96 14:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for a 30 day block from editng Wikipedia

I preserve above comment because it contains diffs that back my statements. To sum it up:

1. I am not a sock, Shoemaker's_Holiday is not a sock.
2. I didn't back my harsh comment on Dana because I thought that it was backed by evidence. It wasn't. I have apologized and striked out statements that I can't back.
3. I think that Dana's behaviour is not correct at all, good faith is exhausted, many editors think the same and comment about it on the incident list page.
4. I already gave Dana a good faith advice to stop posting about the studies, Dana ignored it, Dana brought this upon him for not taking a break. I have a history of making this sort of good faith advices and having patience with editors.
5. new: Dana has also ignored your good faith advice to take a break from homeopathy and is now pushing Linden's study that has also already been shot down repeatedly.

--Enric Naval (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my statement based on Dana's behaviour during last day. I have presented diffs, like you asked, to back my presentation of objective verifiable facts (which I have made every effort to prevent them from being accussations). I still have good faith, but my patience with this editor is exhausted. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU

For this. You are my hero. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Any surprise?

Any whatosever? Antelan ^talk 01:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel

Hi JEH. Thanks for your recent look at this article, which led to your placement of a COI tag. If memory serves, somone complained about this article at ANI and the submitter was advised that WP:COIN would be a good place to also raise the issue. I didn't find a COIN report, so perhaps this was never done. I notice the WP:SSP report that you mention languishing at the bottom of the queue. Can you give me an opinion as to whether the problems with the article are fixed, and if you see ongoing bad editing? The reason I ask is that soon it will be too late to ask for a checkuser on all the socks, and I'm trying to figure out how far we are from having solved the problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Web 2.0 Criticism origional research

FayssalF claims that the entry in criticism was synthesis. You claim it is original research. Yet neither of you provide specific detail as to how your claims are valid. Simply stating a thing does not make it true, it makes it a matter of opinion unless it support by verifiable fact (or at least some supporting reasoning) In the case of both you I would think it a matter of uniformed opinion and perhaps to a certain extent me not being clear enough on my point.

And now to the point.

The criticism is specific to the language use to describe Web 2.0 by using grandiose terms that lead to hyper-inflated expectations of the object being described. THAT is not original research. One need to simply read wikinomics to get a good does of tech-utopianism rhetoric. It is NOT personal opinion that Web 2.0 is hyper-inflated. Simply read the Gartner report that details Web 2.0 heading into the trough of disillusionment. To paraphrase the report, Web 2.0 whatever it is, will not be useful for another two years.

The rhetoric of the technological sublime is neither original or new but is grounded in mass communication theory based on works of Adorno and James Carey; to name a few.

I don't know who the "us" are you refer to but it seems to me absurd you proffer to represent an authority and claim to be the speaker of the ambiguous "us".

However I'm willing to oblige ignorance on a subject matter and provide the specific reference I mentioned. A simple google search woul

L earn ing Can Be Fun With Online Game s No doubt that we all agree that computers and internet are the future of communication and l earn ing. And it seems that, since our children enjoy so much playing on line computer games, even in schools, the teachers have taken l earn ing to a different level. It s easier for the children nowa day s to l earn with the help of computers and internet, so even teachers encourage that, and so are the parents. Computer game creators have found a new way to open minds, by creating all kind of games especially for the children to l earn while they are playing. So, l earn ing can actually become fun! At the present, there are lots of free online games . From cards to l earn ing ABC s there are many opportunities to l earn while you play. No matter how old you or your children are, there are dozens of different online games to help you l earn more about a particular subject. For example, let s say that you have young children and want them to be more motivated when it comes to l earn ing. Sounds like a difficult task for a parent. Luckily, you have a handy solution. You can easily download online games. Most of the games, like the backgammon game, for example, are for free, although a simple registration may be required. And the easiest way to find a legit site is to search on Google for free online games . Very simple! And the most interesting part about this new form of educational entertainment is that there are specific games for different age groups. For instance, some websites such as Funschool.com have divided the games into sections. If your child is a preschooler, there are cartoon builders and rhyming games. There are also games for kindergarten and elementary school . This will improve your child s skills and allow them to l earn and have fun while they are playing on line games. And what s most important about this new form of education is that it teaches our children that l earn ing can actually be fun. Dis covering new games, they also discover new topics of interest, l earn new things and remember for later the things they ve l earn ed. And let s not forget the high school or college teenagers; there are games for them to play, too! Sometimes, it becomes hard for them to grasp certain subjects they study at school. After all, it s the eternal fight with Mathematics or History! One can never be too good at everything! Luckily, free online games can actually make this hardship seem a piece of cake! Whether you are preparing for your SATS, or you just want to do better your chemistry exams, Funbrain.com can help you out. This website allows you to download plenty of games; you just pick your topic of l earn ing! And it s funnier and simpler to l earn chemistry formulas, without studying from an unfriendly book. And it will motivate you even more to l earn new and new things. Every parent s or teacher s wish is to come up with new, motivating ways that will help the children l earn ing and understanding difficult concepts. The Internet revolution has no boundaries. Isn t it nice to know that our children can actually enjoy and have fun l earn ing, while playing computer games? I ll say that for us, the parents, it s like a wi sh com e true! By: Sheila Baker Article Directory : http://www.articledashboard.com Sheila Baker is a professional write r who focuses on the industry of online gaming , including online backgammon, chess and other games. other articles by Sheila include reviews of backgammon sites ( www.play65.com , for example), marketing tips for online games sites and much more.