Jump to content

User talk:GregJackP/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States v. Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boldt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope to see you again soon!

I was a little surprised to find your retirement notice today -- I do hope hope that you will come back to editing sometime soon! Your contributions to legal articles and your commitment to broadening our understanding of Native American history have made this encyclopedia infinitely better. You commitment to content creation has certainly inspired me to become a more active Wikipedian, and I am sure it has inspired others as well. Hopefully I will see you here again, and at the very least I hope you had a nice retirement party before departing! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I second that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please rethink your decision. Or take a lovely wikibreak and come back when the mood strikes you as the right time. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I totally understand your frustration, but I hope you can let it roll off you after a couple days so you can return and keep up your article contributions. Please don't stay gone long. Minor4th 03:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


Good call

Vandalizing a BLP article after an on-wiki dispute with the article subject is among the most ugly behaviors possible in WP. Your WP-head has been in a bad place and I am guessing you woke up to that. If so, it is good you at least walked away; there is some honor in taking the toxicity elsewhere. There is more honor and good in acknowledging you've done badly and trying to do better. But yes, at least take the toxicity away. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

MastCell: Do you want to take action on this? He was asked to stay off of my talkpage, here. This violates WP:NPA, WP:HOUND, and gravedancing. Let's see if you are willing to take action against one of your MEDRS teammates. Anyone want to take odds? GregJackP Boomer! 01:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Jytdog, really, that's asinine. Do not come here to leave a shitty comment like this after GregJackP basically got his ass chewed out on ANI. Even if that ass-chewing was done correctly (Greg knows where I stand) there is no justification for sticking it to him afterward. Greg, I hope to see you back here, I mean on Wikipedia, not just on a talk page. You've done many good things here. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
DrMies, the sentence "There is more honor and good in acknowledging you've done badly and trying to do better" is about staying in WP. Of course we don't want to lose anyone. Nor do we want to keep anyone who does slimy crap and cannot even acknowledge that; my comments were in response to these which of course GregJackP deleted to make my remark appear out of the blue.
Look Drmies - GregJackP and his meatpuppet Minor4H have been doing almost-as-ugly crap to me (the same sort of sheer battleground hackery as they laid on RJensen but of course not directed to my RW identity). So he got called out on one corner of this ugly pattern of behavior (and just called out - no block, no warning). I was actually assuming good faith that he retired out of shame (again -- shame is better than shameless; repentance is better than both) but since he is right back at the same slimy behavior, perhaps it was just tactical. But no - I am not gravedancing as there was no block - no grave - on which to dance.
GregJackP - do stay away until you get your head on straight. If you love content, write content and stop making WP a battleground. So toxic. Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
What part of stay off of my talkpage do you not understand? STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM MY PAGE! GregJackP Boomer! 07:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone that is willing to block this asshole and keep him away from me? He's been warned twice, here and here. What the fuck do I have to do to get him away from me? GregJackP Boomer! 07:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You came on IRC about this. Here's the solution. Post this to WP:AN. "User:Jytdog has been harassing me on my talk page for quite a while. As seen by these diffs (insert diffs) he has been warned multiple times about this behaviour. These diffs (insert diffs) is the latest example of harassment. I'd like to request an interaction ban, to help reduce tensions on the project". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 08:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I think this problem needs way more than an interaction ban. Refusing to stay off user's Talk pages after being requested is a repeat pattern of uncivil behaviour on Jytdog's part. Of course, diffs can be provided. GJP, I hope you enjoy a break and come back soon. Your efforts are much appreciated.DrChrissy (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy, nothing is going to happen here. I've had email exchanges with a couple of admins who couldn't be bothered to do anything after the first time he returned today. They are not concerned about it, he's not harassing them after all. You know, that's all he does is harass people. He demands to know who people are, who their employers are, etc., even though he has been told that is inappropriate. He is rude and obnoxious to new users or subject matter experts. Yet he's never been blocked for this behavior. He doesn't create any content and does his best to run content creators out of the project. He comes here twice, insulting as hell, basically gravedancing. He's an asshole. Why would anyone want to be in a project with people like him around? GregJackP Boomer! 09:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
PS, I have no intent on ever coming back. MastCell's BS was the final straw, and this BS from Jytdog is the icing on the cake. GregJackP Boomer! 09:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog has been warned and has agreed not to comment on this talkpage again. This makes a block unecessary at this time, though I would fully expect a block to be issued (indeed, would apply one myself) if he reneges on this agreement. Yunshui 雲水 10:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The asshole did it after two warnings. Yunshui, you can stay off of my page too, if you are going to be useless. This is why he keeps doing this, because you are too fucking lazy to take action against him. So block me, since you allow that asshole to harass whoever he wants without any consequences. GregJackP Boomer! 10:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Freedom of speech Barnstar

The Freedom of speech Barnstar
On behalf of WikiProject Freedom of speech, The Freedom of speech Barnstar is awarded to GregJackP, for contributions related to expanding and improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia relevant to freedom of speech and censorship -- including Glik v. Cunniffe. From the participants at WikiProject Freedom of speech, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

spiral of justice

Thanks to Gerda Arendt's 600 year old image of the spiral of justice, I continue:

Honesty suffers in great need:

Truth is beat,

You've given up the fight;

Lies are raised on to enormous height.

retirement? GregJackP, please dont!

so many of us, tired, want, but wont.

a wiki vacation I do understand

go, and come back. we'll lend a helping hand ! --Wuerzele (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yash! -- Yash! (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Washington --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi GregJackP. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Sorry to see you go.

I'm sorry WP will not benefit from your creative energy. valereee (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
I wanted to give you this Barnstar to congratulate you with on the work you have done to raise the United States v. Washington article to F.A. status (Today's Featured Article!) and to recognize all of your wonderful contributions here at Wikipedia. Speaking as one who writes, I understand all-too-well, the tireless work, the setbacks, the frustrations, and even heartbreaks that go into making something special like this possible. You have earned this grand moment to savor in joy, and I hope that you will re-consider and resume your work here, because people of your caliber and dedication are so desperately needed. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
TFA today, precious again! - Without you, the spiral of justice turns faster. Latest: a user was blocked for having said that he works often and well with women on quality content. And I thought being taken to arbitrary enforcement for having formatted a malformed infobox (as Andy) or for saying that I don't take the accusation of ownership lightly (see Lawrence Olivier) was absurd enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi GregJackP. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Today

St Cecilia's Day
A Boy was Born

Music in your ears and heart! (in a box, also an idea for a user box, as we lost the "outcast" one - which attracted you - because it was created by an outcast, - the new one was inspired by an outcast and can be taken as a model to play with) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

thank you

...for coming out of hibernation, your edits on glyphosate and placing the final warning template on KOA talk today.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016
peace bell

Thanks for supporting justice and fairness, - miss you! 2016 had a good start, with an opera reflecting that we should take nothing to seriuz, - Verdi's wisdom, shown on New Year's Day, also as a tribute to Viva-Verdi. (Click on "bell" for more.) Miss Yunshui (among others) and his harmonious editing. We can only try to follow the models of those who left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bowman v. Monsanto Co. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glik v. Cunniffe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glik v. Cunniffe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glik v. Cunniffe

The article Glik v. Cunniffe you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Glik v. Cunniffe for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

The article Bowman v. Monsanto Co. you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co. for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Delldot -- Delldot (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Glik v. Cunniffe has been nominated for Did You Know

I have just approved the above nomination, upon which you were a major editor. I personally wish to thank you for your diligence on this important civil rights issue.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. has been nominated for Did You Know

DYK for Glik v. Cunniffe

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...
justice for indigenous peoples
... you were recipient
no. 420 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

Miss you, also Bier und Bratwürste! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jensen

You are needed for a discussion on Talk:Richard J. Jensen#Notability and bias!

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/United States v. Kagama --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your article "about the development of the Congressional plenary power doctrine over Indian tribes, and the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act in the U.S."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

INYMI

I did rate your article at Washington_v._Confederated_Bands_and_Tribes_of_the_Yakima_Indian_Nation as being C-class, Mid-import. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GregJackP. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Danke
Variedades de calabaza

Miss you, thanks for all you did, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A Comment on Your Previous Racist Statements

Hello- I've been meaning to speak with you about an altercation you and I had about a year ago here on Wikipedia, specifically on the European Colonization of the Americas article. It had to do with a discussion about whether it was more appropriate to use the word "seize" or the phrase "acquire control of" in describing the overall takeover of the New World by European colonists, relative to the decimation of the Native American population by virgin epidemics of smallpox, typhus, etc. (the phrase was in the section of the article describing how the weakening and lessening of Native American populations, due to those diseases, made it significantly easier for the European colonists to assert control). My argument, which is the generally accepted consensus, was that a good part of the lands in the Americas were not heavily, if at all, populated by Native Americans, therefore it was inaccurate to describe the colonization process as a whole through the loaded term "seize", although it is indisputable that much of the land was indeed taken by violent force from various Native American tribes. I trust you remember this conversation? Here is the link to the archived discussion in case you need a refresher (go to the section entitled "RfC: Should the word "seize" or "acquire" be used to describe the process through which colonists came to control the Americas?").

My point in posting this comment is not to restart the substantive debate from afore, which was mostly settled anyways when you began responding with racist ad hominems against me. My point is to focus specifically on the racist ad hominem arguments you used against me in a rather repugnant attempt to both establish your moral superiority in the conversation and release your inveterate racial prejudices. Before I get into the specifics of what I am talking about, you might be wondering why am I bringing this up now, over a year after the event, and after your apparent "retirement" from Wikipedia. I'm bringing it up now because I am more educated about the particular brand of racism that you used against me in the original conversation, whereas at the time I failed to realize both the depth of the maliciousness with which you attacked me, and the depth of psychosis necessary for someone to seriously make such statements. My recent experiences with the alt-left during the 2016 United States Presidential Elections revealed some rather deranged mental trends in the logic of the alt-lefters (for the record, I am a diehard liberal, but certainly would never characterize myself as an alt-lefter). Given that I am now aware of these things, I thought it fitting to communicate to you just how disturbing, vile, and unjustifiable your statements in that conversation actually were (and still are), especially since it is unlikely that you have atoned or reformed for these transgressions (you were unapologetic at the close of our previous discussion). I would just hate to have you going around thinking your behavior in that context was, on any level, appropriate or justifiable.

What am I referring to specifically? Most centrally, you used the racist ad hominem "your people tried to exterminate my people" (paraphrasing- see the link to the RfC above for your exact verbiage). At its core, this statement is a beautiful example of racist psychopathy: it groups together all members of a particular race and ascribes to them certain events or qualities simply on account of their phenotypic characteristics. You had no idea what my racial pedigree was- you assumed I was white, and that therefore "white people" were "my people". Do you have any idea how insane this is? First off, simply because one is a member of an overarching racial group does not mean that every other member of that racial group is his or her "people"- there are hundreds of distinct ethnicities within overarching racial groups, and you have no right to bastardize those distinctions with ignorant generalizations. Would you call a Chinese person the "people" of a Japanese person? Would you call a Russian the "people" of a Swedish person? Would you call an Ethiopian the "people" of a person from Benin?

Secondly, even if we assume, for a moment, that I am of Western European descent and directly related to European colonists and settlers, your comment would still be pure racist lunacy because the term "my people" indicates cultural parity, not an incorporation of behavior or activity done by others who happen to look similarly to me or share a bloodline with me (e.g., a German today would, usually, carry a German cultural identity- they don't carry any Nazi identity unless they personally choose to subscribe to that ideology. Nazism is not part of German culture: it is part of German history. Understand the difference?). A person in the United States who is white does not necessarily share a close affinity with another white person simply on account of their racial parity.

Thirdly, you don't get to cherry-pick historical events, pervert those events to your liking, exclude all other events, anachronistically evaluate such events through the lens of modern-day history, and then stigmatize an entire racial group by pinning your prejudiced banner on them. By the same logic, I can lump you in with all other people of Native American descent and say "your people were savages who practiced human sacrifices, brutal tribalism, scalping, and primitive rituals, and it wasn't until the white man came around that you were finally civilized, abandoning your repugnant and inhumane behavior, and now get to enjoy the comforts of modern society, including practicing the noble profession of law that is based on principles of reason forged by white people." What if I just limited it to "your people practiced human sacrifices" simply to stigmatize you, as an individual of Native American ancestry, in the present? Would these be justifiable generalizations on my part, even though the generalizations contain elements of truth?

Of course not- they would be examples of unjustifiable racist grouping: you are a distinct individual whose identification with Native Americans as "your people" simply means that you carry a cultural affinity and closeness with others of similar lineage. It does not mean that you take credit, or bear guilt, for any specific behaviors from those in the past, whether positive or negative, simply because those acts (again, whether positive or negative) were done by people who you, by chance of birth, happen to share certain physical and cultural characteristics with. Do you understand the argument here?

In our original discussion, I was not practicing any kind of historical revisionism- I was citing information from reputable sources and making the reasonable argument that, although much of the land in the New World was taken by force (stolen, if you will) from the Native Americans, much of it was not heavily populated, if at all, when the Europeans began colonizing and settling. That was the point of including the logical jump between devastating epidemics and the weakening/lessening of Native American resistance. As far as genocide goes, you don't get to use the statements from General Amherst expressing his racist vehemence against Native Americans as evidence of a systematic plan of extermination. One group conquering and oppressing a weaker one is par for the course when it comes to human history, and partly because of those conquests and exploitation, people like you and me get to live in relative comfort today, where we don't have to spend our lives scrounging around for food and water and generally eking out a miserable existence (I'm not saying this to justify anything: I'm saying it to point out the massive skew in your perspective). Cherry-picking certain poignant historical events and evaluating them, in isolation, through the lens of modern-day ethics (which, of course, holds much of past practices in great repugnance), not to mention ascribing such events to all people within an over-arching racial group ("your people"), is nothing short of ignorant racial prejudice. Do you understand?

This comment is already getting a bit long, so I think I'll wrap it up here. I don't expect you to apologize to me for your statement from over a year ago, though I do hope that you realize why it was racist and why it is unacceptable in a forum that maintains a heightened level of decorum (this is not the comments section of a YouTube video, not to say that such statements would be acceptable there either). I do find it ironic and amusing that you cite people acting like "assholes" as one of the reasons for your retirement from editing Wikipedia- you responded to an RfC with vile racism, and you are complaining about "assholes" on Wikipedia? Ok then. Out of curiosity, you're not a PI attorney by any chance, are you? I'm just a bit astounded to see these kinds of arguments by someone who has been admitted to the Bar in one of the 50 states (I'm assuming you're in the US).

Lastly, I also want to comment on our shared legal profession a bit more specifically; in our original conversation from over a year ago (again, see the link above), you used the word "loser" as it is used in the legal community to refer to a losing argument. Setting aside the irony of that, the reason I objected to it was because we were neither discussing the topic in a legal capacity, nor were we discussing it on a legal forum. Your use of the term in that context, therefore, was inappropriate, because a third-party layperson easily could have interpreted that as a direct ad hominem against me.

Well, I could go on from here, but I think that presents the main issues I wanted to bring up. Hopefully, you understand your errors and take action to improve. I wish you the best in your legal career, counselor- perhaps we'll meet in the courtroom or some pretrial conference one day. If we do, I sincerely hope you do not subject me to any racist filth, despite what might remain at that point in your mind. I will surely extend you the exact same courtesy. JordanGero (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice response, psychopath. Is that your stock answer every time you get called out for your racist nonsense, i.e., just put up the smoke screen of "historical revisionism"? Nice. Please explain to me where I've spread "revisionist history", darling. Are you referring to my error in describing Jeffrey Amherst as a "lieutenant" rather than a "lord"? Is that what you call "historical revisionism"? Allow me to be perfectly clear about this: absolutely nothing I said in our previous conversation was contrary to established historical fact- nothing. The same, however, can hardly be said of your sickening comments. What kind of person includes the statement "your people tried to exterminate my people" in a civilized conversation? On what planet do you think it is appropriate to attempt to stigmatize your interlocutor by referencing his race and cherry-picking historical events so as to prop up your disgustingly sectarian and vile perspective? And that's not even taking into account that you have no idea what my racial identity even is. Do you see me talking about how "your people" engaged in savage practices of human sacrifice, brutal tribalism, and primitive rituals, spending most of their miserable lives trying to survive, and that you now get to enjoy the comforts of modern society, including having a lifespan 2-3 times what it used to be and easy access to medical care, by the grace of technological and social advances that are largely the product of white people? Do you see me trying to stigmatize you in that manner, psychopath? No, you do not, because I have NO RIGHT to cherry-pick history to my liking, evaluate it under the lens of modern-day ethics, and use it to override your distinct individuality. Do you UNDERSTAND why your statements to me in the previous conversation were absolutely inappropriate racist drivel? You owe me an apology. I am waiting.
As far as your claim that "everyone in the conversation" took the position you took, no, that is false: several people voted with me. Secondly, what kind of pitiful argumentative position is this, i.e., "more people sided with me, therefore I am right"? Another example of a smoke screen used by racist loons like you who lack any kind of substantive defense for their positions. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the most convincing explanation for why your "side" received more support is because the actual RfC was worded in a way that implied extreme favor to your side: it was started by another individual who originally contested my edit. I explained very clearly that "acquired control" was a much more appropriate wording in that section, given the context, but unfortunately, racist psychopaths like yourself who like to practice inherited victimization to shore up their massive racial insecurities were massively triggered by this. And now you have the gall to deflect from lacking a substantive response by discarding all of this and stating "everyone sided with me" as a substitute? Lovely. You must be quite the PI attorney, sweetheart.
Thirdly, yes, you certainly do need my guidance because you've revealed yourself as a bastion of typical racist ideology, though in your case, it is doubly disturbing because you're making use of your minority status as a shield for such racism. Absolutely stunning display of affected racial inferiority complex. Beautiful, Mr. PI Attorney.
Lastly, you conclude with another deflection about "creating content". This, along with most of your other deflections, is another ad hominem: what on Earth does this have to do with the subject at hand? Where have I made any claims about content creation (even though I actually have contributed positively to Wikipedia)? How dare you imply some kind of elitist editor position to derail legitimate criticism of your activities on Wikipedia, especially after you retired in great ignominy by essentially rage quitting and calling everyone an "asshole"? How dare you? Beautiful. Perfect. Wonderful. You truly are the exemplar of intellectual robustness, Mr. PI Attorney.
Make no mistake about it: in a live debate, I would have reduced you to a quivering manchild in the stage corner, sucking on your own thumb, in abject despair over the merciless shattering of your diseased Weltanschauung. Racists who use their minority status as both a shield against legitimate criticism and a sword with which to heap racist abuse on others deserve nothing less.
Also, and I promise this is the last thing, you don't get to claim "I'm retired" to avoid criticism of your activity on here, got that? As someone with extensive editing experience, you above all should know this very well, capeesh?
Carry on now. Feel free to return for another helping of getting intellectually brutalized. I pray to high heaven that I get the chance of confronting you in a court of law, though I somehow doubt that I will be chasing any ambulances in the near future (professional responsibility at all that jazz, ya know). JordanGero (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


I'll advise you not to abuse Wikipedia's policing tools to shut down legitimate criticism of your activities here, otherwise I will report you to the administrative board, got that? I have made my point already, therefore this will be my last post on your page. If you, however, continue to post on my page, or to respond to me here, I WILL respond to you. If you do not wish me to respond, simply do not respond to me. You can go ahead and delete this message like the last ones to hide exposition of your racist gobbledygook. Carry on, now, Mr. PI. JordanGero (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

A Comment on Your Previous Racist Statements

@JordanGero: I'm retired, you moron. Go spread your revisionist history BS elsewhere. I'll also remind you that everyone in the conversation took the position I took, not yours, and will point out that I do not need your guidance. Come back when you've actually created content. GregJackP Boomer! 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@JordanGero: I'll make it explicit. Stay off of my talk page. GregJackP Boomer! 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Where to go?

I haven't contacted you much for a long time, but I see you retired. I am sorry about your bad experiences here that prompted you into this. I don't know whether you want to communicate with me, but I grew to listen to others in the last few months. I left you an invite at your talk page at Meta-wiki, where you can benefit there by discussing how to improve the Foundation itself. Or maybe you can try Wikiversity, where you can tutor law courses. --George Ho (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: v:Wikiversity:Welcome and v:School:Law. George Ho (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for DaBryan Blanton

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DaBryan Blanton. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. bender235 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregJackP/Archive_13&oldid=1075737088"