User talk:Jtbobwaysf

This is Jtbobwaysf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:

post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them

They should not be given alerts for those areas.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you so much for notifying for Kanika Batra article. I like your comment. Thanks for being transparent and reasonable. DAR (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Uma medalha para você!

	A Medalha Surreal
	Thanks for Cryptocurrency bubble article. FML ^{talk - me at pt} 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you Rebecca jones (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Rebecca jones Sincerely, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being a civil human being!

		The Civility Barnstar
		I have encountered a lot of hostility over the past couple weeks, both from editors and administrators, directed both at me and at others. Your willingness to engage with me, talk through my concerns, and assume WP:GOODFAITH rather than being hostile and uncivil has really helped take the edge off of the whole situation. I hope you continue to be an upstanding person and you stay with Wikipedia for a long time! Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu thanks! Please keep editing, you will get into the flow of the nuance over time. Sometimes you cant influece some articles much, others you can. All depends on the dynamics of each article. Julian Assange and other "AP2" (American politics) articles are examples, there are a lot of very political editors that will stonewall anything. As for crypto articles, it is quite easy to make changes as long as you have good sources. Some articles had more content in the past but got stripped back when people started to remove the non high-quality sources, and I would say in general the shape of the crypto articles have improved. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

meow

Jung008292 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

ANI-notice for Imelda Marcos

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos|Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos]]. The discussion is about the topic Imelda Marcos. Thank you. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on Imelda Marcos article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imelda Marcos; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing valid external links. -Object404 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Imelda Marcos -> "don't do that" edit removal

Don't do what? -Object404 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem with saying stuff edit summaries that is highly misleading

I mostly ignored the end of your response at ANI until now as angered as I was about what you said in the earlier part. Having reading it, while I still find what you've done seriously wrong, I'll try to put that aside as much as possible and implore you directly to change. I have no real opinions about the article. As a BLPN regular I do agree no matter how distasteful someone is, we still need to comply with BLP although I also know such compliance could still mean an article is overwhelming negative but even that being the case, we still need to be on the lookout for problems.

But none of this excuses you using misleading summaries, which yes are basically lies. Such lies actually harm any attempts to comply with BLP and our other policies and guidelines. Instead of talking about stuff we should be, e.g. 'is this source good enough for a BLP', 'is what we say supported by the sources', 'are there enough other sources with a different view we are excluding?'; we instead waste time on silly things. I'm replying so late because I ignored that thread as I'd already spent a lot of time on it and although it's something that is important it's also completely silly.

It's silly because there was absolutely no reason you had to lie in your edit summary if you're here for the right reasons and I'm still assuming you are (hence this message). You could have simply used an accurate edit summary as I've tried to explain 3 times now. If you had done so, perhaps there would be discussion over actual issues with the article. But even if for some reason in a fit of madness you did leave that misleading edit summary, once challenged you could have quickly acknowledged, yes I was wrong. I should never have said the info "failed verification". Here's what the actual problem is... If that had happened the moment you were challenged on the Imelda Marcos talk page, again it's likely that things would be different. With either case, I'm not saying you wouldn't be facing a topic ban, there are other concerns with your editing. But who knows? At the very least it would have allowed discussion on these concerns to take place.

It sounds like your unsure if those 3 sources are sufficient for making the claim, especially in a BLP. That's a reasonable discussion even if some of the reasons you've given why you feel that way are perhaps not that well supported by our policies and guidelines. Yet the only way such discussion can happen, is if you actually articulate the problem. If you instead say "failed verification" and then persistently evade the question "did you actually read the sources?" which also means you can't properly explain what your concerns are, there is no way for this to happen. I myself hate to admit fault, but when you said something "failed verification" when you've never read any of the 3 sources, there's no two ways about it. You've made a major error.

"Failed verification" means I checked the source and it doesn't say that AFAICT. It doesn't mean whatever you meant by it, which actually after all this time, I'm still not sure. (As always, you can come up with edge cases like that I gave at ANI. Or even something like where the topic is the wealth of Imelda Marcos and the source is a biology text book. Although again it's still likely to be better to provide a more detailed explanation e.g. 'this a biology textbook, even if it mentions the wealth of Imelda Marcos, I don't think it's an RS for that'. Still I wouldn't care if it was such an edge case, and think few would.)

As I said at ANI, people should be able to trust what you say (within reason). Yet now every time I see an edit summary from you I'm going to have doubt. Every time I see you say something on the talk page, I'm going to wonder, is this really the truth? That makes editing with you very difficult.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification means the content is not verifiable. You will note there was already a section on the talk page relating to this billionaire POV. Next, I dont think my talk page is the correct venue to discuss sources. We will do that on the article or better yet on the ANI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with bitcoin cash

Can you share with me the reason for the split between BCH and BSV? I've googled and the answer seems political and vague, which isn't helpful. Surely there are a few concrete reasons for the split that we can give on the bitcoin cash article, right? I'm just lost in all this but want to improve the article. Any help/advice? LaceyUF (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@LaceyUF: I dont want to discuss why on my talk page as that would be WP:NOTFORUM. However, if you can find some good WP:RS that say the reason, we should for sure add it. Good RS are things like fortune, wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc. We cannot use blog type articles (such as forbes contributor articles). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Does this suffice? LaceyUF (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@LaceyUF:No, bitcoin.com is not an RS. It is a cryptocurrency news source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@LaceyUF:Hi Lacey, Here's an article from the NYTimes detailing the BCH-BSV split. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/technology/cryptocurrency-price-drop.html Mazdamiata200 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This is likely a WP:RS, good suggestion Mazdamiata200 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI

No big deal because you didn't know, but don't ever modify threads in the archive. E Eng 14:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: ok, thank you for the info. didnt know that. should i revert, or just leave it as it is? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason you don't modify or add to an archived thread is that it's a "frozen" record of a discussion. Once the thread goes to archive, no one's watching it so (a) no one's going to see what you wrote anyway, and (b) it looks like you said those things and everyone ignored it. As it happens, in this case someone wanted to continue the thread so I retrieved it from the archive and moved it back to WP:ANI, so everyone is, after all, seeing your added bits right now; so by good luck it's no harm, no foul. In normal cases the right thing to do would have been, as you said, to revert out your changes as if you'd never made them. E Eng 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you for the clarification. Now I know. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving forward

I was encouraged by your admission at ANI. I agree that a RFC is probably the best way to go. Suggest you start one ASAP and we may just be able to avoid the topic ban for now, but with the clear understanding that it can be imposed should you revert to your previous editing methods. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do so. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You are now subject to a topic ban

Per Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos, you are now topic banned from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed. There was some support for a broader topic ban, so I suggest that you be careful in the broader topic of Philippine politics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: can you please define what broadly construed means in this case (what articles does it include and what does it not include). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A page ban would prohibit you from editing one page and might include a partial block. A topic ban, however, is broader and depends on your own judgment to identify the pages in that topic. When people say "broadly construed", it generally means that they don't want to hear any wikilawyering about how a page doesn't really fall under that topic. If it can be reasonably construed to fall under the topic, it's included. Brazilian thrash metal could not reasonably fall under this topic ban. However, History of the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos might be reasonably construed – or, at least, the parts that mention Imelda Marcos. Of course, you can't mention Imelda Marcos on any talk pages, nor can you discuss articles about her – this applies to the entirety of English Wikipedia. You have to move on to a completely different topic. You can appeal the topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It's best if you wait several months (six months is standard) and point out that you've made constructive edits either here or at a sister project. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: cool thank you for clarification. I didn't edit much related to the Marcos family anyhow. I pointed that out in the ANI, but nobody was too interested. The purpose of my edits were to cleanup some lack of NPOV/BLP stuff on the article (something I do on lots of BLPs), no particular interest in the article's subject so it should be easy to stay away. Thanks again! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind this covers the "subject" and applies to all of Wikipedia, including your own talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Ah, ok. But I can ask questions about the ban here on my talk page right? Am I not allowed to mention the family's name on my talk page? What is the protocol here? I have struck the name of the family above, is that sufficient, or something else I need to do to comply? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you can mention the subject in connection with an appeal of your ban (so no need for the strike above), but not in other types of discussions about the subject. The subject is off-limits. That leaves you free to edit the vast number of other topics we have here. -- Valjean (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: Yes, plenty of topics around. I will also remove the strike. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. You still have skills which are useful here. BTW, do you have some relation to the Philippines? I lived there (on Mindanao) as a child (1st and 2nd grades). -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have edited a lot of topics over the years, I dont recall what caused me to end up on the banned page, but sometimes I will read something and click on it. I dont have any relation to Philippines, but have visited a couple of times for work. I mostly live in Asia Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:, some time has passed since this ban was put in place. I was wondering how i could go about seeking a removal of the ban, or at least a narrowing of scope down to the specific article. I don't have any special interest in the politics of that nation, but there have been some scam topics recently (pig butchering scams) that I find interesting and now it seems to have spread to this country. So I was hoping that the ban could either be dropped or narrowed so I dont accidently run afoul of it which I suspect could result in a broader punishment. I think I have demonstrated good behavior since then and am apologetic for my wrongdoings in this article. I am guessing my talk page is not the right venue, maybe you could please point me to it if there is another venue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- "You can appeal the topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Vitalik Buterin

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Notice

Revision/Crypto Sources

Revision

What are contributor sources?

I'm new to contributing to this article/crypto in-general.

Other questions:

Where can I find a list/documentation on acceptable sources for crypto? I tried looking on Wikiproject Cryptocurrency but there wasn't any documentation.
Are we allows to directly reference sites like Coindesk for price milestones since their price charts can act as a historical resource?
I also wanted to rename the Early 2021 Bitcoin boom section of the article to Early 2021 boom and divide it into Bitcoin and Dogecoin subheadings since there isn't any current references about the current Dogecoin boom. Do you think this would be appropriate or should I reconfigure the section another way?

Thank you, Lectrician1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Lectrician1: Sorry, there is no list. You can read about it here Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)#BRD_on_recent_deletion and just below it here Talk:Tether_(cryptocurrency)#RfC:_acceptability_of_a_source_&_should_an_edit_be_made?. Sometimes people are unaware of the policy, and others people complain and don't like it, but there is widespread consensus for it. There is no list of sources, but I will give you a rundown here:

1. contributor WP:UGC is not allowed. this means no reddit, twitter, contributor, blogs, etc. Also means no company websites, ethereum corporate blogs, etc.

2. we also do not allow crypto news sites, such as coindesk, coinmarketcap, decrypt, theblock, etc. ledger journal is sometimes allowed, if it has been peer reviewed.

3. You can rename the section. But you need to find sources for the dogecoin boom, such as wsj, fortune, bloomberg. Normally those publications do cover it.

4. only high quality independent sources are allowed, think very very mainstream. such as fortune, wsj, bloomberg, nyt, etc. If it looks questionable, then you can generally assume it is not allowed. Even WP:IBTIMES is not allowed. You can also check on WP:RSP to see if a particular one is banned, but even if not located there, the above consensus is in place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Financial markets content project

Accusations: Explanation required

What's your problem?

1RR

Re. closed AE thread

Important message

RandomCanadian

Links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gimiv/sandbox Gratis! Gimiv (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gimiv: Hi, I added a source on your sandbox today, hope that is ok. There is also a discussion here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Origins_of_SARS-CoV-2 with two other MEDRS sources that consider the possibility remote. Eventually, the 'very very so far away but still possible' and the 'likelihood merge into one general speculation that cannot be ruled out. I would suggest your sandbox include a field to note if it is MEDRS and another field with a quote, eventually this will go to an RFC and a summary will be useful for the un-involved editors to review it. The involved editors seem to spend a lot of time on this subject. At some point in time I would like to run an RFC on it (if someone else doesnt do it first), but I dont feel quite ready to do that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, what was this? Tinybubi (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tinybubi: I was just suggesting to add more data to your sandbox. The various covid talk page discussions always note if a source is WP:MEDRS or not. So it would be useful to note that on your sandbox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: do you mean my Sandbox here? What was in Gimiv's sandbox that was so bad that it got them banned without standard procedure? Tinybubi (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry @Tinybubi:, I didnt look at who left the message here. There was nothing wrong in Gimiv's sandbox, just a very long list of covid sources without commentary. Very well done. Perfectly kosher, couldn't remotely be considered a violation of policy at the time i saw it. I guess they got banned for socking? ToBeFree please recover the data from Gimiv's sandbox as I will host in my sandbox, as of my edit diff. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Could you please help me to recover this data? ToBeFree ignored my ping. Thanks! If here is not the right process, please advise. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't ignore a ping, there simply was none. Special:Diff/1025235384 didn't work because it does not contain a new signature. The only surefire way to ping someone is to do so in the edit summary. However, you can enable notifications about successful pings in your notification preferences. This, to make the confusion perfect, does not notify you about successful pings done in edit summaries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a look now. The page was deleted by Hut 8.5 per WP:G5, possibly relying on, or agreeing with, my sockpuppetry block of Gimiv, who has also already unsuccessfully appealed their block. If you would like to compile a list of sources, I recommend that you do not rely on a banned user's work and do your own search for sources instead. As I believe that WP:G5 and WP:BANREVERT are useful policies, and as restoring the content would make the ban evasion successful, I don't believe that the content of the page should be restored. There is no point other than enabling ban evasion in doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: was the user banned for the list of sources? I collaborated with the user on the list of sources, did i violate policy in doing so? Is this list censored here at wp? The link you cited stated, "If the edits by the good faith editors are substantial, G5 no longer applies." Also about pings, can I put a ping in an editor summary? I will try that here, let me know please if you think I did it correctly. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: in this edit I tried to ping you in the edit summary, but it doesn't appear to me that it worked, but maybe you can tell me on your side if it worked please. Also I would add that it would seem to me that the primary purpose of deleting the user's account would be to prevent socking, so why would I be asked to re-create content that I collaborated with user on. (I must admit I am not aware of this user's case in detail). It seems that you are assuming that the purpose to the user account was to make the list, that the list violated policy, and that I didnt substantially edit the list, and most important that my work in the list had no substantial value. It is a large number of assumptions and seems to violate WP:AGF. But if the list itself violates policy (I dont see how it could, it didnt look bad to me, or I would not have edited it), then that could be a justification. But to assert that my edits are not substantial (it would be impossible for you to know what time I might have put in on my side to make my edit, seems like a long stretch. If you would like to email me the list, that could be workable as well, as well as clarify if the list is censored, then I would not post it. But as wikipedia is open source, I dont see how the work product of another could bear any license that could prevent me from using it and that my participation in the edits of that content would afford me access to it (unless the work itself is censored). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that was a template. Templates don't work in edit summaries, but [[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]] will always work. Another benefit of this method is that the user will be notified about the specific diff, not just the discussion page. This way, I often notify users when removing their WP:AIV reports, so that they are notified about the removal and can see the reason. The ping above worked too, however.

The purpose of the account was clearly to circumvent a ban. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. There is no assumption about the list itself involved nor needed for deletion.

Your edit was the addition of 341 bytes to a 74007 bytes page. That's less than 0.5%, and definitely not "substantial". Your addition:

|-
|[[United States National Library of Medicine]]
|08/12/2020
|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/]
|Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?., A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus’ distinctive genome. Karl Sirotkincorresponding and Dan Sirotkin

Again, instead of enabling ban evasion, please take your time to do your own search for sources, and feel free to compile a list with your results. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I deny that I am enabling ban evasion and dont appreciate that allegation (if you are alleging that). In the note on this talk page (or maybe on the user's talk page, I forgot), I expressed an interest in repurposing that content to add MEDRS distinctions and asked the user permission prior to doing so on their talk page. I made some changes to that content (as you noted a small %) and did some work on my side, but cannot finish what I had planned to do without the user's part of data. I dont have any contact with this user, so it would be impossible for me to continue my work. It seems unusual that you would allege my intent is malicious (enabling ban evasion). Please also let me know if my ping works. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That ping worked, thanks!

Nothing is malicious about requesting a list of sources for improving the encyclopedia. Neither is it malicious in any way to disagree about a block or ban. Whether requesting to restore a banned user's compilation of sources is "enabling ban evasion" is probably debatable: I'd say it is, as it would result in the user's ban evasion suddenly being successful. I personally won't contribute to that success and don't think anyone should.

The quoted addition was the only submitted contribution to the page. There have been no changes beyond this single addition. By providing the addition to you here, publicly, I have restored the only work submitted by you that was actually affected by the deletion.

The only edits to the page have been 1) the list creation, 2) your addition less than an hour later, and 3) the deletion request. Exactly three edits. The deletion happened more than 15 hours after a big red {{db-g5}} was placed at the top of the page. This makes it very unlikely that someone had the page open in their editor and was surprised by the deletion. You probably had a look a while after the deletion and the page was gone to your dismay, before you had any chance to protest or prevent it from happening. But this also means that any research done off-Wikipedia has not been deleted and is still available to you. You could use it as the first content for a new table.

By using the search engines listed at WP:BEFORE, #D.1, you will very likely be able to create a similar compilation. You might find sources that the banned user didn't, and you might miss sources that the banned user found. Such is life; I believe that this is a necessary byproduct of having a healthy community that properly enforces its exclusion of those who persistently or severely violate its policies. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with the block or the ban of the user, I dont have any information on the matter, and take you at your word it was due to socking. You have stated that the content was not objectionable. You have explained that 1/2 of the edits on the page were made by me. That would constitute a significant portion, especially in light of the fact that I pinged the user prior to the deletion of the page discussing editing the sandbox content. My email address is open and you could send me the data there, if you feel exposing it publically is akin to unblocking. Please tell me how to get a second opinion as you have made it clear you don't want to release it. Is ANI the venue? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious about the "1/2" argument. Table rows, time invested, bytes added, actual characters or words in the resulting page... There are many arguable measures for significance, but "1/2 of the 2 edits" really isn't in this case. "1/3 of the 3 edits", if I may nitpick, as the speedy deletion tagging was an edit too. Perhaps that already visualizes the fallacy.

The remarks about the "very well done, perfectly kosher" content that "couldn't remotely be considered a violation of policy", and later about licensing, make me afraid that if anyone sent you the page content, you'd afterwards practically overturn the deletion by re-creating the same page again. I won't participate in this gaming of the system.

A second opinion might already have been provided in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1025794831, and the deleting administrator should probably be asked as well, but if all of them agree and fail to convince you that the time could be spent more productively on creating a similar list yourself, AN (without I) could be an appropriate venue for inviting a fourth, fifth and sixth opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, was the list similar to this? We can easily expand it on our own with newer sources. Tinybubi (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Help to save data

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19

Draft Review

Fighting promotion

Question about something everybody knows

Draft essay on the notability of cryptocurrencies and blockchain-related projects

Discretionary sanctions

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: what is the restriction on BLPs? I read the link you gave to the arbcom decision (a long time ago) and couldnt read what it is. Is it some sort of 1RR? What exactly was the edits that I made that caused this notice, I edit BLPs all the time and have never received this notice. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There is not restriction, it's just a notice. I placed it because of your interest in Fauci's article, which has been rather contentious. I didn't see that you'd been notified before, apologies if that had already been done in the past year. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Does it mean that any admin may impose a sanction on an editor relating to an edit of a BLP? And that this particular fauci article has no particular restrictions? Is that correct? As for the fauci article, I dont recall if I have ever edited it, other than maybe some passing comment on the talk page. I was sanctioned once for some edits on a Philippines politics subject a while back, I reverted too many times some absurd (or at least I thought abusrd) content and then I was sanctioned for it. Sometimes the passions on the BLPs can run high with some seeking to promote and/or vilify. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Any admin may impose a sanction on an editor who edits disruptively in BLPs, broadly construed, regardless of any notification. The arbitration sanctions regime is more formalized, with a broader set of available restrictions, including formal topic bans, which aren't normally imposed as a regular administrative action, and is intended to deal with patterns of activity. The Fauci article is subject to the same restrictions as any other biography, as is its talkpage. I'm just formally notifying you, which is a standard protocol, and is not in itself a sanction of any kind. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: does BLP restrictions also apply to talk page discussion? My note here was reverted by Johnuniq claiming that BLPs dont allow talk page discussions. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a big difference between using a talk page to propose an improvement to an article based on reliable sources, and using a talk page as a Twitter substitute with "drug user, and representative of foreign nations". Reading the article first would help focus thoughts. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia you will need to examine standard procedures and learn from others how articles are improved. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere, and this is a BLP violation. Wikipedia isn't a platform for defamation. If this kind of behavior continues you may expect to see editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I believe what I suggested on talk is already supported in the article with sources. There is no need for me to provide sources for a summary. Why would summarizing in the lede require additional sources? There are already sections about the subject's drug use and involvement with Ukraine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Would you apply that to Prince? Rob Ford? (both dead, but the principle still applies, especially since their drug use was far more notorious) Michael Flynn as a foreign representative? Or do you just want to slap a pejorative label on Biden? Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not Prince, he is quite notable outside of his drug related death. Same for Michael Jackson. The question is what to do with subjects that are really not notable other than their controversial activity. But it does seem that the subject's painting is notable (NYT, etc) but not a single result on the first page here about him being an attorney. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The procedure at Wikipedia is that if the only reason an article on a living person exists is to list their faults, the article is deleted because it is just a coatrack for negative opinions from other people, and Twitter can be used for that. A BLP article has to focus on the person and what they have achieved. Negativity can be mentioned but opinions have to be attributed. People generally fall into two camps: those who, after an explanation, find WP:BLP logical and beneficial for Wikipedia's anyone can edit model, and those who don't. The latter are often topic banned or blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This is just your opinion, and everyone has one. There are lots of articles that are quite negative where the subject is undesirable to many. There are other articles where many love the subject, and plenty in between. Your discussion of twitter is nonsense and generally, it is not an RS, most experienced editors know that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Proposed changes to bitcoin.com article

Hi there. Gs for Bitcoin.com, declaring COI. I noticed that you've previously made edits to the Bitcoin.com article. A month or so ago I suggested some edits for that page (in the Talk section, as is best practice for editors with COI). Would you be so kind as to review the suggested edits? I think you'll find they represent a significant improvement to the content that's currently live, and therefore bring value to Wikipedia readers. --GS for Bitcoincom (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@GS for Bitcoincom: please remove all of the bitcoin.com sources, those are not WP:RS on this article. Use only high-quality 3rd party sources, such as wsj, nyt, etc. No crypto websites, etc. Most of the proposed sources are not RS, including but not limited to investopedia, coindesk, cointelegraph, bitcoin.com, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Thank you for your reply. I've made proposed revisions to the Bitcoin.com article based on the WP:RS and at your suggestion. The revisions are currently in my sandbox. Excuse my lack of familiarity with the protocol: Would it be better to post the suggested revisions elsewhere, such as in the Talk section of the Bitcoin.com article? Happy to make further proposed revisions at your suggestion. I'm honestly struggling with what is considered notable for the page, but I do believe that considering the importance of Bitcoin, Bitcoin.com is deserving of an article that provides more clarity on its history and position in the industry. Thank you sincerely for your time. --GS for Bitcoincom

@GS for Bitcoincom: OKcoin is not an RS. The next web is also not good enough per WP:RSP. Yahoo Finance also not good. That only leaves SCMP and that domain website (maybe). Content is WP:DUE and an article is notable. Similar concepts, but not exactly the same. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:. Thanks again for your engagement and guidance. In my sandbox, I've removed the NextWeb as a source, as well as YahooFinance. The "OKcoin" citation is from OKcoin's website - so it's not a news source, but rather a primary source. In this case, OKcoin issued a statement, and that statement is being referenced in the article. Would this be considered acceptable? If not, perhaps it would be better to remove entirely the following: "In May 2015, the 5-year agreement was terminated by OKCoin who issued a statement[4] claiming the agreement regarding the domain was invalid due to the entity named in the documents not being representative of the actual company. Ver sued OKCoin’s Hong Kong entity over contract breaches[5] and was awarded a $570,000 judgement by a Hong Kong court in November 2017." --GS for Bitcoincom

Orphaned non-free image File:ConsenSys logo.png

Editing archived threads

Athlete Ally

I noticed that my changes have been reverted.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Removal of maintenance templates

James Madison

Your previous comment on edit warring yesterday

After looking at the edit history for James Madison, it appears that his edit warring has been taking place since 3 Dec when he made a bold edit which was reverted the next day by Dhwiki as allowed by Wikipedia policy under BRD. After that, WP:Sealion has continued for what I am counting as 13-14 violations by him against Wikipedia policy for BRD. Once he was reverted by Dhwiki on 4 Dec, then he was required by Wikipedia policy to take his dispute to the Talk page until consensus was determined; he did not do that but has instead tried to force his edits into the article with no support on the Talk page as related to his apparent fixation on "Zinn"-related edits. This is a partial list of his edit warring and serial tag bombing for reference:

curprev 16:00, 10 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 125,131 bytes +1‎ →‎top: avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 15:53, 10 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 125,130 bytes +412‎ →‎Ratification of the Constitution: contrast democracy with republicanism undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 9 December 2022

curprev 18:46, 9 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 124,642 bytes +416‎ re-add maintenance tags; please seek consensus in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 01:59, 9 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 124,076 bytes +168‎ →‎Slavery: maintenance tags undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 01:14, 9 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,908 bytes −278‎ Undid revision 1126108314 by Freoh (talk) as requested in talk undothank Tag: Undo 8 December 2022

curprev 14:22, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 124,074 bytes +513‎ →‎Memorials: add JMM HS note undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 13:59, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,561 bytes −9‎ →‎Slavery: more neutral wording undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 13:23, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,570 bytes −79‎ →‎Slavery: removed bit about Madison's cruelty not being "excessive" - feel free to re-add if you can say this objectively and neutrally undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 13:12, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,649 bytes +53‎ →‎Slavery: re-worded to match source better, avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 7 December 2022

curprev 23:28, 7 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,596 bytes +243‎ →‎Ratification of the Constitution: avoid scare quotes, as per MOS:QUOTEPOV undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 15:42, 7 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 122,970 bytes +278‎ →‎Ratification of the Constitution: reverting Federalist 10 discussion with Feldman citation undothank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 20:42, 5 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 122,189 bytes +126‎ →‎Ratification of the Constitution: restored maintenance templates - please seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

curprev 07:28, 4 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 121,517 bytes +107‎ →‎Ratification of the Constitution: cleanup templates undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

It is becoming fairly plain that the edit warring and the WP:Sealion has gone somewhat past the Wikipedia guidelines to be "polite to new editors". If you combine this report I've made to you here, along with the other instances of edit warring on other Wikipedia pages which you commented on the Madison Talk page, then Noticeboard should be able to determine the correct interaction determination. You can use my words above in any report you might file and I will try to fully support if you ping me from Noticeboard. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your Noticeboard submission was opened and closed before I could respond as it was listed by the reviewer as 'stale' and missing links. Here are many of the missing links which Bbb would require to see; he needs to see the actual links to the edits.

Freoh has apparently now widened his edit warring to the FAC page for James Madison which is currently in progress here: and here and here . The Noticeboard request originated when Vanamonde93 indicated that this was appropriate to do by stating that "If the behavior (of Freoh) is a problem, this (the Madison Talk page) isn't the forum to talk about it." User:Jtb then brought the discussion to Noticeboard. User:Freoh was been edit warring against Wikipedia BRD policy on the Madison article since making a bold edit on 3 Dec here which was reverted by Dhtwiki on 4 Dec here . Rather than using the Talk page to resolve the dispute, Freoh then started to force his edit into the article with the long edit sequence listed above. When I tried to support Dhtwiki and his revert, Freoh then sent a 'Thank you' to my Talk page and then continued forcing his edit into the Madison article against BRD policy. If it helps, then I can link all of the edits which were listed by Jtbobwaysf above. User:Freoh currently has a grand total of 225 edits on Wikipedia and his disruptive edits have now moved to the FAC page for Madison which is currently active. User:Freoh has no support on the Talk page from Dhtwiki, Jtbobwaysf, XeCyranium or myself, and he appears to be editing with a fixation on "Howard Zinn"-related edits, of the type which I have seen other Wikipedia editors call WP:POV-warrior and WP:Sealion. All four editors I just mentioned I think would trust Vanamonde93 to separate the wheat-from-the-chaff in Freoh's edits if she is willing to do this to clean-up to mess made by Freoh regarding Wikipedia BRD and his not respecting the revert by Dhtwiki from a week ago. Jtbobwaysf appear justified in filing his Noticeboard entry for review.

If you re-submit Noticeboard with all the links then it should be more successful. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 has indicated on his Talk page that I re-submit your Noticeboard report with links which I have done this morning. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Happy Holidays

Draft

Important notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. Did you perceive I violated a policy, or just an FYI? In another 5 years everything will be under DS it seems. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No violation, it's just a standard notice. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Any idea why alleged behavior by an LGBT would be considered US related? I found a BBC source here in Europe. This is not a topic I know well, just happened across it recently. Child grooming seems to have UK content with sufficient weight to include in the lede. I tried to use google EU to search in EU only on the subject, but that failed. Here seems to be a mention by huffpo uk. It doesnt seem to be a solely US phenomenon. Know any tools to limit search region? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I do think the grooming conspiracy is related to US politics, but I was actually thinking more about your work that I'm familiar with on other pages, particularly Twitter Files. As far as I know, Google searches can't be geo-limited. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose everything that occurs in the US could somehow be tangentially and probably incorrectly argued is linked to US politics. The twitter releases did seem to have a lot of focus on the Biden election I recall. Not an article I edit frequently other than the my chatter on the talk pages sometimes, I find the politics articles to be tedious with very impassioned editors on those articles. I waded into a discussion about another SE Asia country politics figure (that I could care less about, was only there doing some BLP work) and got a tban as a result. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to assert any policy violation, just to drop the notices. You might be right about DS expansion, though with the new reforms, these annual-renewal notices are going away at least. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didnt know about annual renewal on DS notices. I thought we just gave them out once. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please look at the false and dangerous claims on the page above page which you edit. Many thanks.

I miss you. Are you still well? I wish you success

The issue of bias

Requesting some assistance

SBF

Report

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wracking ^talk! 02:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wracking: I went ahead and implemented the text you proposed at Avicii. Hopefully the other editor stops the reverts, looks like border on WP:TE to me. I realized I hadn't read the policy before making my comment (foot in mouth). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf Please explain how my editing fits WP:TE, because your remark here seems to border on violating WP:NPA. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you can claim they are operating in bad faith. TylerBurden (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I have reverted your premature implementation of the change of wording, as the discussion is ongoing and no consensus has been achieved, contrary to what you claim while citing irrelevant pages such as WP:SUICIDE. Respect the process, and don't assume bad faith, before you came in throwing accusations around we were having a civil dicussion about this. TylerBurden (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Your revert again on the article is now looking like WP:TE especially given the revert on your own talk page calling the warning bogus. Wracking let me know what you suggest? I was thinking this article subject was a BLP, but clearly not as the person is dead. Sometimes I edit too close to my bedtime ;-) I think put it back to DR. The edits look to me like WP:SEALION. I dont even see how, not sure what POV could even be here, but maybe the cause of death is meaningful to someone. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was absolutely bogus, because there was no edit warring going on, the dispute was being discussed on the talk page, then you decided to escalate with warnings and accusations of bad faith. Since you have not only doubled down, but thrown in another baseless accusation of "civil POV pushing", with zero explanation, I am starting to think this might be something for WP:AN/I. You're not making any sense, and I don't appreciate the personal attacks. TylerBurden (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please send to ANI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're so eager, then write up a report about my edit warring, tendentious editing and civil POV pushing. Hell, throw in that I'm a dictator as well for good measure. TylerBurden (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Request admin

@The Anome: I got you from RAA list. Could you have a look at what is going on here. A number of editors want to update to Talk:Avicii#Consensus_on_"committed_suicide" to follow apparent WP:SUICIDE policy but from my view this TylerBurden (talk · contribs) is WP:EW to keep the content in the article. Wracking (talk · contribs) put the issue to DR but apparently it got shut down there. I didnt feel like running an RFC for this likely snow close (seems uncontroversial) and while it appears to me to be TE, I am not sure it meets the threshold for ANI as I dont think there is a 24 hour 3RR. Seems to me more of a user behavioral issue where the editor refuses to follow policy, as I would think policy would trump article level local consensus. The SUICIDE content update is not an issue I feel strongly on, but other editors seem to be facing a WP:OWN issue here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Why are you still claiming the existence of policy that doesn't exist? Read WP:SUICIDE, and quote me exactly where it says that it is policy to forbid committed suicide appearing in articles. If you do not feel strongly about the issue, then this bizarre escalation makes zero sense. There are certainly behaviour issues here, but they are with you, since everyone else has managed to follow policy, have civil discussion and respect consensus procedures, whereas you took it upon yourself to enforce non existing policy and make baseless accusations of bad faith. If an administrator looks into this, all I can suggest is a WP:BOOMERANG for personal attacks and assumption of bad faith. TylerBurden (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I am not concerned of your threats or I wouldn't have asked for The Anome (talk · contribs) to intervene. My experience at wikipedia over the years input from editors in cases that they do not feel strongly about is advisable and useful. You will note I was initially questioning why we couldn't use committed (as I hadn't read the policy), and then after I took my foot out of my mouth for not reading the SUICIDE policy, I realized that it was indeed policy. My talk page or the talk page of Talk:Avicii are not the correct venues to discuss the policy. If you feel strongly about the suicide policy and want to overturn it, I would suggest you give feedback over at that policy article. Everything at wikipedia I read is changeable, you just need to build consensus (not something you are doing here by making threats). When The Anome edited the Avici article I read the logic that committed implies a crime, and as we now mostly accept, it is someone's right to kill themselves. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So you can't quote where it is policy? Well that would probably be because it isn't, not yet anyway, not in anything you have linked to. How am I threatening you? You were the one who left me an edit warring template, threating me of being blocked from editing. Then you cast several accusations at me as seen above, what made you feel the need to escalate to that point? Maybe I'm missing something, but I have never had someone act that way before stemming from a civil content dispute. TylerBurden (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, I have been referring to MOS:SUICIDE and have been linking to the wrong page. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it's water under the bridge, happy editing. TylerBurden (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

COVID Close

ALS Good Article nomination

question on Assange article

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hi, I made this edit at Julian Assange. The text heading I feel is undue as the sexual abuse allegations were eventually dropped. Normally on other articles we either downplay or remove entirely dropped allegations. This article is controversial and subject of DS. My text change was reverted. I started a talk page discussion Talk:Julian_Assange#undue_text_in_heading. Due to the DS I would think that I do not have the right to change it again, am I right? Would I now need to put it to DR or do an RFC? Wondering how challenged content is dealt with on these DS and GS articles. Note in this same sub-section. Just seemed excessive we have to do DR or RFC for every policy challenge. Also wanted to get an opinion before I went too astray as I did get a ban on another BLP for making edits I thought were supported by policy (I often try to tone down negativity on BLPs of articles that some consider to be about undesirable subjects). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If talk page discussion fails to achieve a consensus or you are otherwise not satisfied with the result, yes, you should move to dispute resolution. You should not re-add the edit 1) because it's a contentious topic(the new name for DS) and 2) the edit is in dispute. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: would WP:BLPRESTORE apply in this case, meaning the other editor should not have re-added the content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yes, that's correct. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: so my question is what to do when seeing another editor do this in violation in policy. I am guessing two wrongs dont make a right, so I still cannot revert. Is that correct? Is the violation sufficient to send to ANI? Or just forget about it and talk about it on talk? (the latter what I have been doing) I did twice ping the editor on talk about it, and never responded (even though the editor appears to be a frequent editor after that). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

BLP issues should be raised somewhere, probably at ANI. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC on subject

Binance edit requests

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Essay

@GreenC: I do think it would be useful to create an essay on the use of pejoratives, or at least consider it. It seems more and more common these days. For example I have seen JP Sears called a conspiracy theorist (a common one), Changpeng Zhao was recently referred to as a money launderer, and of course the SBF discussion. It seems there should indeed be some discussion on when to apply these sorts of labels. They are inherently pejorative and one framework to use as a test is if the person previously had a wikipedia page prior to their crime (or simply allegation in the case of a person like JP Sears), as that would at least let us know if the person was notable prior to the actions that are deemed by some as worthy of a label. In general, I dont like the use of the labels, but it seems that other editors really do like them. It seems to one mechanism to more or less vandalize a page of a person whose views the editor disagrees with. As for an essay, I have never written one (a wikipedia essay that is) so I would not know where to start. We also have wikipedia pages like Bernard Ebbers where hte subject is treated quite neutrally (I admire this) and a more advanced type of pejorative in Jeffrey Skilling. My ideal would be something like this:

OK: Bernard Ebbers: Deals with the misdeeds in a neutral manner and provides due weight to the long career.
Excess: Jeffrey Skilling Provides I think a bit excess weight to the conviction, and uses the term felon in the first sentence. However, maybe this article subject was more known for the crime than for his actions prior to it?
Nuts: CZ as convicted money launder (reverted). This being totally absurd as the article subject is a quite famous CEO of a crypto exchange that pleaded guilty to one charge and we find out later probably serves no time or gets maybe a deferred prosecution agreement. Largely a PR push by the Justice Department I am guessing.

Just some thoughts. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Essays are a fun diversion, because normal rules like OR and RS don't apply. Of course if the essay is bad, no one will link to it. But if it is well done, it can be influential. It should be based in and quote guideline/policy where possible. Other than that, simply start a page in WP: space and add the {{essay}} at the top and that is all. WP:ESSAY has more info. Perhaps relevant essays already exist? Wikipedia:Essay_directory. I look forward to reading and contributing to anything you wish to start. -- GreenC 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

After some consideration, calling "fraudster" and some other labels a pejorative is actually the same problem as labeling. It presupposes the reader believes it's a pejorative. But no dictionary says so. Some sources even use it in an objective manner. Thus it is not convincing to call it a pejorative, if you don't believe it is. Another approach is to focus on contentious labels. Not all labels are contentious. Felon is not contentious. Using an evidence-based approach, one can easily demonstrate when a label is contentious: RfCs, revert wars, talk discussions. It's not very convincing to deny something is contentious, when there are so many debates and struggles. An essay can be made for contentious labels. The policies in play are disruption, BLP, maybe some others. Counter arguments like OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and every page is unique would be need to be addressed, but I think they could be. -- GreenC 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Huh?

Thank you

Hi there,

I wanted to say, thank you for your comments and edits on the Lex Fridman page. I've been dealing with that page for some months and I've finally withdrawn from it. Certain editors drown me in bureaucracy in order to refute my attempts to balance the article.

I'm new to Wikipedia, and i entered into editing that article without knowing the rules for BLPs. I'm sorry for my initial mistakes. I continued engaging with the page because i still saw it as not representing NPOV. My engagement with the page has been a great learning experience over all, though frustrating.

I had to step away because the editors who're pushing the anti-NPOV content are adamant about that content's inclusion, despite my comments on the matter, and they continually misrepresent the issue I'm raising and make me end up looking like an antagonizer or Fridman sympathizer (which I'm not). I've been trying to add balance to the article. I made edit mistakes initially, but that was due to my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and I've since learned that policy and have avoided making those mistakes again. However, my initial mistakes are held against me by the other editors and used to diminish my credibility, and dismiss my suggestions.

In my recent edit requests, I wasn't asking to remove the content but rather just to move it into a different section so that the article would read as balanced. Currently, there's a narrative being pushed that paints Fridman in a negative light, diminishes his accomplishments and distracts from the actual facts of his career/life.

There have been random editors, over the months I've been involved with the page, that have made Talk page comments about the imbalance and anti-NPOV content, but they have consistently been silenced with bureaucracy from the same editor/s that have been protecting and pushing the content from the Business Insider article.

All that aside, and despite your edits also being reverted, i appreciate you for stepping in with your comments and edits.

You healed me from a case of "bureaucracy-related gut twisting" (I've just found the label for it while writing this comment!)

I felt like leaving this website as an editor, but you gave me the feeling of being defended from a bully, and that untwisted my gut!

I'm grateful to you for helping heal the bad feelings that arose from my engagement in the BLPs section.

I love this website, and I'm going to continue trying to make positive edits to any article I come across.

Thank you for being an editor here: you've encouraged me to keep editing myself!

There's a Bantu phrase/word called Ubuntu, which I'm reminded of in this moment.

Anyways, thank you again @Jtbobwaysf. I wish you the best! Uhhhum (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Uhhhum: editing on wikipedia is more and more challenging over the years to maintain npov on articles, as it seems there are more editors that are here to push a POV and they run out the casual editors. This is something that has been going on for many years now. Normally these type of very pushy articles you will have to use WP:RFC, WP:DR, or even post on WP:RSN or WP:BLPN. One some of these articles there will be some POV editors that will just push and seek to state all kinds of policy to support them, it is in fact WP:SEALION and the only way to deal with it is to seek a large consensus through one of these tools I mentioned. Let me know if you need any more help. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for these resources.

WP:Sealion is particularly helpful, as are the other four links. Thank you. I started editing on a BLP, and exposed myself to "contentious topics"; i admit: too early in my time editing here, without knowing how to properly approach a request for comment, dispute resolution, or about the noticeboards. im glad i know of them now.

what i love about this website is the way it facilitates my love of learning: i read articles, follow links, read more, explore more, and this website makes it especially interesting because it allows me to engage with the content/material (through following links to the sources, or editing typos/grammar/content, and even engaging in discourse with other editors). i wish i had the energy to arbitrate, but at this point i think id rather reserve my involvement as an editor to minor edits or at least not edit anymore "contentious topics".

ill probably stay around as a casual editor, but regardless ill continue using this website as a way to learn.

thank you for educating me via these links and for showing me how to properly go about Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. i never expected to learn this, and im grateful to be surprised.

take care! Uhhhum (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Uhhhum, this is an unusual comment given I was the only editor who actually sought out input from independent editors on the reliable sources noticeboard, and they agreed with me. I told you to seek independent input on the article numerous times, but you didn't. So why are you now complaining about being "silenced wth bureaucracy" and suggesting that you were bullied (presumably you mean by me)?

Accusing Wikipedia editors of "silencing" you is an accusation of malice and you should avoid it. Rather than praising this most recent attempt to remove what is reported in a reliable source (per the reliable sources noticeboard), you could try and understand why the critique of Lex is allowed on Wikipedia. I'm just disappointed you wrote this after trying to help you quite a bit. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz, this isn't a comment on your talk page and it wasn't my intention for it to make you feel "just disappointed".

You remind me of a WP:SEALION.

...

Example 1:

WP:SEALION: "They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors."

You: "I was the only editor who actually sought out input from independent editors on the reliable sources noticeboard, and they agreed with me. I told you to seek independent input on the article numerous times, but you didn't. So why are you now complaining"

Me: this isn't true, i went to the teahouse first to ask about this from other editors, after which i changed my thinking and worked to make contributions rather than trying to remove content. And i continued to seek input from other editors on the Talk page.

im not complaining: im writing a post on an editor's talk page to thank them for helping me learn how to be a better editor.

...

Example 2:

"They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions."

"Accusing Wikipedia editors of "silencing" you is an accusation of malice and you should avoid it."

What i said in my comment you're referring to:

"There have been random editors, over the months I've been involved with the page, that have made Talk page comments about the imbalance and anti-NPOV content, but they have consistently been silenced with bureaucracy from the same editor/s that have been protecting and pushing the content from the Business Insider article."

You continue to assert that im a "problem editor" but youre misrepresenting me and regardless of what you say, ive recused myself from editing the Fridman article and ive made every effort to learn from my mistakes.

This isnt the first time that youve misrepresented me.

...

Example 3:

"Civility is not limited to superficial politeness but includes the overall behavior of the user. Superficially polite behaviors still may be uncivil. Some examples are politely phrased baiting, frivolous or vexatious use of process, ill-considered but politely phrased accusations, unrelenting pestering, and abuse of talk pages as a platform to expound upon personal opinions unrelated to specific content issues."

" this is an unusual comment"

"why are you now complaining ... and suggesting that you were bullied (presumably you mean by me)?"

"Accusing Wikipedia editors of "silencing" you is an accusation of malice and you should avoid it."

"Rather than ..., you could try and understand"

"I'm just disappointed you wrote this"

You have not been civil with me.

Please stop interacting with me. Im not editing the Fridman page anymore and i dont want to have any more interactions with you. Thank you for the help you did provide me: you did help me to better understand Wikipedia policy. Uhhhum (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Richard Teng draft

BNB questions

Twitter under Elon Musk

I think you may have misread the changes you undid on this revert: Special:Diff/1230670411. This was not a BOLD change; it is reflecting the current title of the article (i.e. given that the RM is open). There is no prejudice against changing it again if the RM closes with consensus to move and no basis for keeping incorrect style and hatnotes on the page while the move remains open. I'm not interested in edit warring here so I'm asking you to please self-revert. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

In this edit you then went on to restore WP:sockstrike content to a talk page. I think you should just let the discussions run and leave the same contested content on the mainspace alone as well. It is a long disputed change that was closed, reviewed, reopened, etc. I dont personally think anyone should be messing with the consensus on the mainspace until this is resolved (my personal opinion). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This frankly doesn't make any sense to me; are you saying that when a RM is reopened that the article shouldn't be moved back to its original title? That's not in line with the MRV instructions. Or are you saying that people are contesting following WP:SIMILAR and MOS:BOLDTITLE on this article? I'm not aware of a discussion contesting either.

I'm also not sure how Special:Diff/1230648580 is related, though I think my edit summary there very clearly explains the change I made (which was to partially restore content a different user removed right before; i.e., it was the exact "let the discussions run and leav[ing] the same contested content" you're requesting). Can you clarify? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 02:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The move is controversial as you can see. In a controversial matter it is best to let things run their course. Lots of people have stated their opinions on the move (I have) and I hope you have as well. Let an experienced closer deal with it and dont try to curate and move the discussion in the middle of it. I also didnt revert your talk page revert, I only did on the main-space. Just noting it here in our discussion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, why are you just noting it here in our discussion? What does that diff have to do with the straightforward MOS fixes you reverted? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 13:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This matter is currently the subject of a move discussion on the talk page. Drop the stick. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Spare some time?

Wanted to get your opinion on WP:BLP

Hey @Jtbobwaysf,

Its been a while, but i hope you're doing well! Last time we crossed paths, we were debating on the Sadhguru article, where i believe we had a fairly fruitful discussion and were able to share our individual opinions. Thus, I wanted to get your thoughts on another WP:BLP - Michael Witzel. Within the "California textbook controversy over Hindu history" section, many of the sources don't seem to be up to standard for a BLP page, (or a wikipedia page in general..?), and I wanted to get your opinion on this.

The following passage comes from the article, and cites an interview (WP:PRIMARY) and "Pacific News Service" (not a high quality RS) to support the statements written (thus i feel it is also not appropriate). Would love to know your thoughts:

In an interview with rediff India abroad Senior editor Suman Guha Mazumder, Witzel acknowledged that the intentions of the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation to correct misrepresentations of Hinduism were good, but the way they went about it was sectarian, narrow, and historically wrong.

Rejecting criticism that he was a "Hindu hater", Witzel said: "I always get misrepresented that I'm a Hindu hater, but I'm not. I hate people who misrepresent history."

The HEF campaign was dismissed by critics as "one driven by the sectarian agenda of the Sangh Parivar, a term commonly used to describe the Hindu nationalist triumvirate of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad." In a letter to the Board of Education, Vinay Lal, a history professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote:

As far as I am aware, the Hindu Education Foundation and Vedic Foundation and their supporters do not number among their ranks any academic specialists in Indian history or religion other than Professor Bajpai himself. It is a remarkable fact that, in a state which has perhaps the leading public research university system in the United States, these two foundations could not find a single professor of Indian history or religion within the UC system (with its ten campuses) to support their views. Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to say that they would be hard pressed to find a single scholar at any research university in the United States who would support their views.

RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure I left a couple of policy notes over at that article. Will also add to my watchlist. Not sure the overall issue, but looks like a situation of 'my academic pundit is better than your academic pundit'. Wikipedia is not a place for this, certainly not one to amplify disputes between academics where the dispute is not covered in mainstream press. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "fringe debate"; the controversy drew a lot of media attention, and is covered in multiple books and academic articles. There's even a stand-alone article: California textbook controversy over Hindu history. India-related pages draw a lot of pov-pushing, including sock-puppetry and really raw interactions; seasoned editors there appear to 'harden' over time, due to the appalling interactions with these pov-warriors. That's also why I respond so strongly: so many 'disputes', in which even the most common knowledge is disputed, referring to the most idiosyncratic publications (Google "Indo-Aryan invasion debunked"... nightmare). Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Warning Suggestion

New message from Sjones23

Invitation to participate in a research

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Kris Kristofferson sandbox

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

You forgot to sign a comment on Talk:Sheikh Hasina

Happy First Edit Anniversary Jtbobwaysf 🎉

Trump's claims about Venezuela

Greetings. I see you reverted the inclusion of the False or misleading statements by Donald Trump about Venezuela in the Analysis section of the article about the US strike on that country. I have questions. How is it "undue" that the reasons given by the POTUS to initiate this action have been declared false by media and fact-checkers, which in turn link to multiple sources, including official ones? How is it that the POTUS saying falsehoods in an official address has no "weight"? Please notice, I only put a "See also." I need a detailed explanation. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Essentially section titles have heavy weight, and it was linking to a section title on another article without any context. In the future ask me these questions on the relevant talk page and not on my talk page. Dont bring a political WP:BATTLE here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Greetings. This is not a political battle, but an editing question. I'm trying to get your reasoning, that's why I ask you - the talk page of the article is pretty crowded. So, what do you mean by "without any context"? Should I have explained that the reasons Trump is giving have been declared false by fact-checkers - where? What for? Following the link and reading the linked content provides the information, with multiple sources. I placed the link in that place because the fact-checkers touch all those subjects (I'm a librarian, I consider subjects hierarchically, like in the Dewey System). Another place I considered was below the title Background, which also includes those subjects. After reading the subsection, where would you put the link? The veracity of the claims is a pertinent matter, which you haven't contested. Thanks. Maykiwi (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I already explained that the content was WP:UNDUE, wikipedia is not a place for political or other WP:BATTLE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Slight change of subject: Thanks! I was moving around sentences in the lede and ran out of time, so I left a number of one-sentence paragraphs. You very kindly removed the white space and fixed the problem : now there are only four paragraphs, which is what I was trying to do. Thanks again!! --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the change of subject :-) Yes, I figured you got involved in something else so I just stepped in to merge a bit after it looked like you were done. Was hoping I wasnt jumping in to the middle of your edits, nothing worse than two editors trying to edit the same text at an identical time. Thanks again and happy editing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Request admin

Related Articles