User talk:JFG/Archive Drama

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Responding here since you pinged my name... I saw your AE comment and do not think it was fair. There are some differences between AYW and me. First, unlike him, I respected 1RR rule on the page. Second, if you look at my last edit on the page, it is essentially the same as the edit by AYW who was allegedly on the "opposite side" of the dispute. So here we go: my edit actually reflected WP:Consensus, when "partisans" from the opposite sides had happen to agree about something. Not mentioning that many other contributors made the same edit, and the content still remains on the page, meaning it does reflect a de facto consensus on the page. Third, unlike AYW, I did not WP:BATTLE by reporting other users on WP:AE, only to withdraw the request when it came to the "boomerang" action. Finally, unlike AYW, I am not an SPA focused on editing US politics from a certain POV perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks for your comments. I take good note of your defense and I believe it belongs in the AE discussion. I wouldn't describe Anythingyouwant as an SPA, I've seen his name appear in many subject areas; it's true that your areas of interest do overlap quite a bit so I understand how you might have formed this impression of him/her. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's take another example. There is another contributor who was brought on WP:AE in relation to the same page [1], and he is also different. First, unlike me, she/he blatantly violated 1RR rule on the page and advocated that their 1RR violation was proper in AE statement [2]. Second, they just came back to the page after topic ban from the very same page [3]. And finally, look at their block log. This is a "serial violator". I would not be surprised if they were sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bernie is a blank

I agree. It's just that talk pages are not the place for those types of comments, BLP violations. --Malerooster (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Certainly we wish that everybody would stay WP:CIVIL on talk pages… In the sort of situation that you encountered with a fellow editor calling Bernie a dick, you should simply ask the offending editor to strike their own statement. Only in egregious cases of BLP violation, e.g. when asserting something which could actually harm the subject, is it permissible to erase another editor's comment; a mild insult doesn't cut it. Otherwise good luck purging Talk pages of all comparisons of Trump to Hitler… — JFG ^talk 14:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, I have no opinion on Senator Sanders' dickiness; I was just restoring your alteration of a comment by our friend Scjessey who was perhaps a bit hot-tempered that day. — JFG ^talk 14:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

JFG, 2 wrongs don't make a right and otherstuff exists, ect. I would be more than happy to remove comparisons of Trump to Hitler when I see them, or attacks on anyone for that matter on talk pages. I am an equal opportunity "censor" :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad to read this. And you're my first 3RR reportee in 10 years, that's definitely worth a glass of wine, cheers to you! — JFG ^talk 16:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malerooster: Oops… Sorry for mis-attributing your removal of someone else's 3RR notice. Statement corrected. — JFG ^talk 16:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I'm well aware of the DS situation. Is there a specific page or edit you are warning me about? — JFG ^talk 05:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. No ill will intended at all. Just a notification. Sorry if there was any surprise on your part. Hope to continue friendly editing together ! :) Sagecandor (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, with pleasure. — JFG ^talk 05:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

2016

Your recent editing history at 2016 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ: A stern warning for one revert, for which I cited another editor's pre-existing justification on the Talk page? Come on, this is ridiculous… Also, WP:DTR. Now let's address the content dispute at Talk:2016. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sock drama, promptly resolved

(Sigh)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is under 1rr, as you would know if you checked the talk page, where I told you to go before deleting material that was restored by 2 other editors before me. You are lucky I haven't reported you yet. The article is under 1rr, as you would know if you checked the talk page, where I told you to go before deleting material that was restored by 2 other editors before me. You are lucky I haven't reported you yet.63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC) By the way, you lied 4 times: 1. lied that it was copyrighted 2. lied that the article "is not under 1rr" 3. lied about the burden of proof 4. lied that the file is not being used in any other Wiki sites. I see that you read German, so you should have noticed this. Please stop lying and violating 1rr. I am within my rights to revert your remaining reversions on sight because you are only allowed 1 per 24 hours and two other editors added that material. CUT IT OUT NOW. 63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I've reported you now for edit warring. You've been reported for your outrageous conduct, lies, and edit warring. I hope you are blocked for eternity. 63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC) I have answered your report at the WP:ANEW noticeboard. Eternity is rather long, especially toward the end. — JFG talk 09:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Do you lack basic English fluency and literacy, or is this an issue of a lack of cognitive capacity? You might be the most obtuse editor I have ever encountered Let me know!63.143.196.107 (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC) "Near native level of English"! GOOD ONE. I nearly died laughing. Trust me, a native can spot you a mile away. I think if you weren't so big on deceit you might knock yourself down a couple of notches on that vaunted "english proficiency" of yours. Level 4 is a bit optimistic, don't you think?63.143.196.107 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DS violation

2rr. Please undo. SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What are you talking about? Diff please. — JFG ^talk 12:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Needless to say it's up to you and nobody else to track your reverts, but I'm afraid you'd feel badly so I did some extra work in the hopes of avoiding another AE drama:

[4] [5] The second one adds an edit comment that utterly misrepresents what she said, by the way, and I urge you to give a careful re-read of the short bit of the article to check your understanding of its statement after you undo your revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

First edit is not a revert, it's a complex cleanup of the cybersecurity section, which I fully explained on the Talk page after Space4Time3Continuum2x called it POV pushing. Second edit is a straight revert of your addition about Masha Gessen, where I argue in my edit summary that you are misrepresenting the source, and I quote her exact words. No cause for concern on the DS front, but feel free to open a discussion to defend your prose. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive threats
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will take it to AE if you refuse to follow up. Your edit summary is as I described it, but as long as you don't try to introduce that into article text, it is moot. Meanwhile, you are free to review the definitions of revert at 3RR and 1RR guideline pages on edit warring. "Explain on the talk page" and "Complex cleanup" don't appear there. And there's also your reinsertion of the Clapper smear in a new version, against consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) As you wish. Enjoy. — JFG talk 17:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I see that you've capitulated on Clapper. Good. Please consider wrapping up the other matter as well. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I have not "capitulated" on Clapper, I reverted this in the interest of pursuing the dialogue. See my new comments on the Talk page. I won't restore your Gessen statement. — JFG talk 18:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) You would have been blocked for the reinsertion, but sorry to have misinterpreted your actions. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC) OK I'm reviewing your recent history. I see numerous reinsertions w/o consensus, a violation. I see 1RR violations on several recent occasions. Are you sure you don't just want to take care of this and clean it up? The AE stuff is really a hassle and it's better for everyone if we all just stick to the Sanctions and clean up when we breach them. I'll stand back from this for 8 hours. I suggest you review your edits over the past week or so. SPECIFICO talk 03:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC) I'm not online 24/7. Sue me. — JFG talk 07:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC) If I was you, I'd notta come back with that a scant 3 hours later. See, that's why I said 8 hours. I'll wait another 8, courtesy first! SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Listen, I'm not going to spend hours checking all my contributions to Wikipedia over a week, just to comply with your threats of litigation. If you have a specific complaint against my editing, the onus is on you to expose the alleged misdeeds. Good day, — JFG talk 18:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC) I was trying to be cordial and give you a chance to avoid that. Once an AE case comes up, you may very well decide to "spend hours checking" -- it would have been so much better for everyone if you did so in private. And of course the policy at WP is that we all must "check" our edits before we make them, so that they conform to policy and ARBAP2 sanctions and do not need to be "checked" later. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC) I am editing carefully and I firmly believe to be in full compliance with site policies and DS restrictions. Enough chit-chat, thanks. — JFG talk 18:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning

I removed some content that you added to an article that was completely lacking in secondary sources, is not encyclopedic, and is clearly controversial (others removed the same stuff for the same reasons). Now I see that you're trying to drag me into no less than two separate arbitration requests, plus additional behavioral accusations on the talk page. Yeah, I deleted your stuff. No, it doesn't belong in the article. You should probably accept that and move on rather than trying to pick a fight with me about it. What you seem be thinking you need, but which you most certainly do not need, is for me to drag you into an AE proceeding on Harassment. That will be happening in the surprisingly near future if you do not alter your obnoxious behavior. But if it stops now, it doesn't have to. Geogene (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

About the disputed content (which was not originally authored by me), I have replied on the relevant article's talk page. Note that I gave you an opportunity to self-revert and, far from dragging you to AE, I explicitly refrained from opening a new case over this, because the DS/1RR rules can be interpreted differently. Please do not threaten me either. Good day, — JFG ^talk 07:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Assange

I recommend that you self-revert here [6]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [7]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no arguing with this now. It has been fleshed out. Also, I am sure this is supported by a content policy WP:V per WP:BURDEN. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: MVBW was not reverting an edit; he was boldly deleting text, and I reverted him. Textbook BRD, now let's discuss; I'm always open for discussion on the merits of the material, no matter which "side" it falls on. Back to Talk page… — JFG ^talk 17:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

AE request

There is currently a request for sanctions pertaining to you at WP:AE ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Thanks for the note; I have replied at AE. Those repeated litigations are a giant waste of time for all editors and admins involved… — JFG ^talk 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Unproductive aspersions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe several editors have already pointed that out to you. That's one of the reasons it's better to self-revert a violation rather than try to prove your immune. SPECIFICO talk 04:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I'm happy to self-revert when justified. I don't need to bow to your requests when they are baseless. Do you care to self-revert when I ask you to? I didn't think so. Besides, I would appreciate that you stop stalking my every move and issuing vague threats based on innuendo. Good day, — JFG talk 05:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) You were advised to self-redact your insult to Call-me on the talk page, and you haven't done so as yet. I must say that few editors would do that in the face of a looming AE block. Interesting approach. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I have not insulted anybody. Please quit the aspersions and threats; this must be the 4ht or 5th time I have to tell you that recently. Thanks, — JFG talk 21:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) It's clear to me that she disagrees with you. (facepalm). This is now strictly between the two of you. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) It's clear to me that she disagrees with you. I apologized. Twice. And I even agree with her suggestion to add the material. From talk page comments, I gather that you happen to disagree with adding it, or at least you're not yet sure. Sane discussion until consensus is reached. This is now strictly between the two of you. Exactly. Mind your own business. — JFG talk 23:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC) If you wish me to stop responding to you, don't extend the discussion. Really, it's that simple. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC) If you wish me to stop extending the discussion, just stay away from my talk page. Really, it's that simple. Good night, — JFG talk 00:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply

To this. WP:REDACT is about article talk pages. WP:AE is not a talk page and not a place for bickering. My advice: please improve your own statement. Are you telling that you did not violate the restriction? Why? Did not you restore a content challenged by another contributor through reversion? My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To respond to your another comment [8], there is no problem with defining was revert is. This is all defined in WP:3RR. Obviously, your and my edits were both reverts. The reverts on this page are not forbidden, but limited to only one per 24 hours. All reverts are restorations of content. However, my revert did not restore any content previously challenged by another contributor through reversion. Your revert did. In addition, I made only one revert on this page during three days, but you made two reverts during 24 hours and 30 minutes [9][10], which is very close to 1RR violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I believe my understanding of the situation to be correct. The relevant policy page defines "revert" quite clearly: To revert is to undo the action of another editor. Your edit was not a revert, as it removed a large section of material that had been collaboratively edited over several weeks by dozens of editors. My edit was a simple, straightforward revert of your action. — JFG ^talk 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

According to the policy, "revert" is undoing work by other contributor(s). Therefore, removing a large section of material was obviously a revert. If you do not trust me, please ask any administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In your interpretation, any removal of text is a revert, because obviously any visible text has been added by someone. I guess we must agree to disagree at this point. Peace, — JFG ^talk 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR, A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.. So yes, removal of material is usually a revert. Adding new material may or may not be a revert, depending on previous history. But whatever. I would rather not edit pages with such an editing restriction. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

1 RR violation at Russian

Please undo your second revert. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No such violation. Please stay off my talk page. — JFG ^talk 14:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation

I reported your 1RR violation here. Note that you did it several times. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Only one of all the reported edits was a revert, the rest was normal editing. I have replied in detail at WP:ANEW. Thanks for the notice! — JFG ^talk 20:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

To my surprise, admin decided those were not reverts. My apology. So, you can continue doing exactly the same on this and other pages, I guess. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem; we all learn something every day. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Luck of the draw. Most admins would have nailed it. That's why AE is better for these enforcement things. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

So sue me. (bis) — JFG ^talk 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

1. micdrop *no idea what is going on in meta* Endercase (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG, this might interest you – [11]. It's a really interesting coincidence ;-) – [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tobby72: Thanks but I assume good faith from all editors, and the case you cite was dismissed by ArbCom. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Mmmm, good times, good times. Come on Tobby72. Let it be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

This is reply to that. First of all, please do not make misleading edit summaries like here. There was no discussion. Second, what I did was not revert of multiple edits (several sequential edits count as one), and it was not blind revert, but a compromise version. Finally, if you disagree with content changes, please use article talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear My very best wishes, I had no intent of criticizing your revert. I noticed that you chose to keep some parts and remove some others, and inadvertently undid some purely cosmetic non-controversial changes which I later restored. However I was just asking you to clarify what you were talking about when you said "both statements should be included", as I only saw one statement that was being edited (the Clapper quote). I came to your talk page because it was more a question of personal understanding than about the article. Now do you remember what was the second statement you were mentioning? Sorry for any misunderstanding. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

!RR Violation -- please self-undo

At Russian intervention. Here [14] [15]. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No violation. Give me a break already… — JFG ^talk 13:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you a chance to tell me why you think there's no violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you a chance to tell me why you think there is a violation. — JFG ^talk 14:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Enough arguing on my talk page. Back to article talk for content or a drama board for conduct.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@El C: @My very best wishes: El_C, since you closed the last 1RR complaint concerning JFG, I am taking the liberty of asking your view of the pair of diffs that has come up today -- in the hope and belief that everyone would like to avoid a trip to one of the Noticeboards. Thanks for any clarity you can give this, if you choose. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Both edits by JFG are obviously reverts. First edit by JFG [16] was revert of this edit, and this edit. Second edit by JFG [17] was marked in edit summary as revert and indeed a revert. This looks to me as intentional violation of the editing restiction on the page. I think this should be reported either to WP:3RRNB or to WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @JFG, do you still insist that your first edit was not a revert? Your second edit was revert according to your own edit summary. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Sure it's not: that was some cleanup of duplicate contents and copyediting. I even explained it on Talk. — JFG talk 16:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @El C:: What's actually going on is that SPECIFICO is edit warring to remove the same text (while scrupulously the the 24hr rule): here here. The text being modified by JFG is not the same text at all: In the first edit, JFG was merely completing my edit. I added new lead text, but forgot to delete the old paragraph. This level of detail in the lede content was challenged here on talk recently. I tried to hammer out a compromise by moving some stuff out of the lede and correcting factual errors/imprecision, which were also WP:BLP vio against those being accused of Russian links, but left some text hanging in the lede, which JFG removed. Note that SPECIFICO often archives conversations she doesn't—like here (where the lead text was being discussed)—from the talkpage; she also deletes and hats comments by other editors when she doesn't like what's being said. She has probably done it well over a dozen times on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and this is vandalism. In the second edit, JFG is reverting SPECIFICO's continued (see the diffs above) deletion of well-sourced and highly notable content. Not how SPECIFICO never made any cogent case for her repeated reverts of this material: she just said it was "UNDUE" and "SYNTHy"—two of her favourite words which she uses to justify deleting anything and everything; she never justified her revert to the lead sentence at all. It seems that SPECIFICO has a long term pattern of harassing editors she disagrees with on the Russian Interference page. See her harassment of User:Darouet here (unsubstantiated 1rr accusation) and here (absurd accusations of misogyny against Darouet and against Thucydides411). This again is a pattern: she blankedly called editors she disagreed with "video-gamer whitewash hordes". More in the same vein: "Not all editors are glued to their computers 24/7 -- in fact there may be a systematic bias toward freaks and geeks that favors such editors over the more worldly and broadly read among us."; This is not a video game; he (Guccisamscub) is still speaking in WP:battleground video game mode. The last one I take strong exception to: the only video games recall having played in my whole fucking life are Tetris on a TI-89 series (in physics class) and Mortal Combat (twice, when I was 10). If this behavior is not sanctioned with a permanent block, wikipedia can't work. Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC) According to the diffs, JFG removes [18] the same segment of text that was previously inserted by another contributor [19]. This text starts from "Since July 2016 Donald Trump's team has issued at least twenty denials concerning communications between his campaign and Russian officials." Telling it was not a revert (as you and JFG do) is beyond belief because you are both very smart and intelligent. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC) As stated above, I don't remove the text, I remove an unintended duplicate copy of it, which Gucci had moved to the relevant article section. And if you want to split hairs, it could be argued that this piece of text was contested shortly after first appearing in the article, and we dit not have a clear talk page consensus to keep it. But I'm not even arguing that, and I'm fine with the text staying as is now presented. — JFG talk 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC) There was no 1RR by anyone except by SPECIF [1] [2], precision-gaming the the the 24hr rule There were no removals of RS text by anyone except SPECIFICO [see 1,2] (only moves and corrections [3]), and the move/correction in question was done by me [again 3] and then fixed by JFG [4]. JFG's other [5] edit had nothing to do with his first one [4]. You're totally wrong about everything. Do you ever get tired? Guccisamsclub (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC) A contributor placed a text in the lead, and JFG removed this text from the lead. That was clearly a revert. If you and JFG were the same person (I hope you are not), that would look differently, but the removal of the text from the lead to rephrase and place it elsewhere would still be "undoing work by other contributor(s)". My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC) WP:LISTEN. The "revert" you are pinning on JFG was mine. I said I was "moving this out of the lede", but I failed to delete the leftovers and to complete the move. My edit wasn't even a revert, but rather a compromise that consisted of moving, tweaking and correcting text, which nobody objected to on [talk] (seriously READ it). Some editors wanted it deleted from lede entirely, others wanted in in the lede, so I "reverted" all of them. Pretty much half of edits on Wikipedia are "reverts" in this sense. But none of this even matters the two "reverts" dragged in by SPECIFICO literally have nothing to do with each other: the text being "reverted" is totally different. SPECIFICO is just crying thief: she reverted the same edit twice and didn't even give a semi-rational edit summary to justify her edit warring. JFG's "2nd revert" was revert of SPECIFICO's actual and glaring 2nd revert. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC) These kinds of irredeemably idiotic disputes now take up most of people's time on Wikipedia. No wonder the project is hemorrhaging editors and hundreds of articles are going down the shitter. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC) No, that was not your revert, but revert by JFG. Yes, I can see your edit, which something entirely different. I think your actual edit was just fine, even though your edit summary was a little strange. You did not move or reverted anything. You only included something really important and sourced to the body of the page, something that was already noted in lede. Some degree of content duplication in lede and in the body of a page is normal. On the other hand, the edit by JFG was revert, plain and simple. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Various people arguing the definition of a revert – this should go to a policy page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If we approach 1RR similarly to how we do 3RR ("...is analogous to the three-revert rule"), both JFG and SPECIFICO appear to have violated the former. JFG, this is indeed a revert (partial, but nonetheless) of this. How can you argue otherwise? Feel free to argue otherwise. And SPECIFICO, this and this seems like gaming of 1RR. Now I can block both of you for 24 hours, or issue a warning in this case, since there seems to be some (long-standing) confusion as to what constitutes a revert. I'll ask this though: is that area of the text really disputed, or are you here only because it is technically a partial revert? That's actually key. El_C 19:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the response El_C. Believe it or not, I did not realize that I was making exactly the same edit two days in succession. I have learned not to edit war and I have scrupulously refrained from that in these political articles. I did check, as you can see from the history, to ensure that I never make more than one revert within a 24 hour span, hence my undo and redo of that edit. But there's a key difference here. As soon as you pointed out my error -- reverting the same thing twice -- I am checking, recognize and acknowledge it. Contrast that with JFG's response on many occasions, including the part of this thread he has hatted: He denies and launches into non-collegial replies. He may or may not believe that my repeat revert was inadvertent, but really -- I hope I don't seem dumb enough to have come here to raise the 1RR issue knowing that I'd just made an edit that might be mischaracterized as gaming 1RR. I don't think I'm quite that foolish. Anyway thanks for your engagement. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: To clarify, does the rule state that you cannot make more than 1 revert in a 24-hour period regardless of what you're reverting? The two "reverts" cited above affect completely different texts, not the same text. If that's the case, a lot of constructive edits can be interpreted as reverts. This effectively means that editors can NOT make more than one edit in 24 hours, because most edits do negate in one way or another someone else's edits. This is a recipe for disaster. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC) An entire paragraph, though—added by My very best wishes— JFG removes with his edit, also including other modifications, yes, that's why it's a partial revert. El_C 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: I was trying to move this text out of the lead and leave a summary sentence, but ended up duplicating text. JFG fixed my edit by removing this duplicated text. But let's assume this is "revert" (I don't accept this at all). Where is the second revert of the same text? SPEC's second sample is a completely unrelated edit. That edit was also a revert of her clear gaming of 1RR. That's why I asked to clarify 1RR policy under AE. Note that SPECIFICO, contrary to her claim, must have been aware that she deleted the exact same massive chunk of text just over 24 hours earlier. Even her second edit summary states: "Really this is off-topic and way UNDUE in this detail and location"(emphasis added). It's just not right for her to deny this. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC) What's this thing about the same text needing to be involved in both instances—that's not how counting reverts work. El_C 22:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC) I guess there is a serious misunderstanding around here what revert is. I did not want to report this to 3RRNB, but here is Guccisamsclub violating 3RR rule on another page yesterday: 1. [20] (this is a revert, as one can see here) 2. [21] 3. [22] 4. [23] None of these reverts was sequential sequence of edits. @Guccisamsclub. Are you going to tell that you did not violate 3RR? My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: Oh wow, I didn't know about this aspect of the policy. Thanks. I'd say with 1RR in place, it is important to keep to a fairly strict definition of reverts, otherwise anyone who edits the page multiple times is likely to violate 1RR. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC) None of these reverts was sequential sequence of edits. @Guccisamsclub. Are you going to tell that you did not violate 3RR? I don't know, I guess. Three of those were actually meant as reverts, so I didn't think I was violating 3RR. But if that's how it's played, I'll probably stop editing 1RR articles because you can be blocked for simply making multiple edits in one day. 3RR at least gives you some leeway, though even that can evaporate quickly once you start doing any serious editing. I dunno, maybe should quit editing entirely. Too much hassle. 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC) A revert is a revert, be it distinct or be it the same area of text. *** I don't see how that last edit is a revert of anything. *** Just edit carefully, I realize 1RR is challenging. El_C 23:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your edit

I asked question here that involves you. You are welcome to respond and explain it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Settled — JFG ^talk 14:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

revert

You need to revert this [24]. Thanks SW3 5DL (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No: I disagreed with your bold reshuffling and reverted it; a discussion is open on Talk:Donald Trump, please move your remarks there. — JFG ^talk 06:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied. — JFG ^talk 08:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reinstatement w.o. consensus 2016 Election

Nobody has supported the text you've reinserted in the US 2016 Presidential Election article. You have violated DS by reinserting your earlier edit without first getting consensus on talk. I suggest you undo your violation. I previously mentioned this on article talk, but I see the violation still in the article. Thanks. Go to 3d opinion or RfC if this is very important to you. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

DS are not a suicide pact. But I reverted until other editors care to comment. — JFG ^talk 02:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

DS Violation at Russians

Yet another unsubstantiated accusation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have multiple reverts violating DS on Russian interference. P.S. you should get up to date on what "revert" means, as your view was explicitly rejected elsewhere after you escaped sanction when @My very best wishes: reported you to the 3RR noticeboard instead of AE. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC) You have it totally backwards regarding reverts. If you think I violated some sanction, please feel free to open an enforcement action. — JFG talk 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC) I count backwards? Are who they call a yankee doodle dandy? Anyway the obligatory warning having been issued I leave you to your defence. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Enjoy! — JFG talk 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Another DS violation at Russians

One [25] Two [26] SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE ← is this way. — JFG ^talk 23:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey! You stole that from me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Good artists copy, great artists steal. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this line is popular.[27] — JFG ^talk 04:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You can run, but you can't hide

You've escaped justice for now, but you can't escape it forever.

Just when you think it's safe to remove the truth from an article based on your churlish WP:BLPREMOVE claims, one of your betters will make a 10,000-word post arguing (successfully) that maybe there were no BLP implications after all, thus you've violated 1RR on an article subject to discretionary sanctions—whose purpose is to ensure that the truth is not improperly removed from WP articles—and all of a sudden, BLAM, you'll be indeffed without discussion. Book it. Your days are numbered, troll.

lololololololol Factchecker_atyourservice 19:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: As far as I know, I have never interacted with you, and I fail to understand the purpose of your sudden rant against me. If you have a legitimate complaint against my edits, Wikipedia provides plenty of venues for grievance: WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N, etc. Finally, I would remind you to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Maybe WP:VNT and WP:RGW would help give you a deeper understanding of Wikipedia principles as well. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 06:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Apologies for provking that response, my comment was supposed to be a joke (hence the "lolololololol"). The "joke", in my mind, was that this massive discussion unfolded at BLP noticeboard on the substantive merits of a content dispute, and countless users chimed in with very thoughtful responses, yet one user kept a rather insistent position that the real issue was that you needed to be blocked for violating 1RR because, allegedly, your claim of BLP exemption was false. To me, it seemed like a case study in questionable priorities. Also I recently came off a block for 3RR for reverting material that had obvious BLP problems, so I felt like I was in a similar boat. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: Oh I see, hadn't noticed the <smallest>lololololol</smallest>, sorry! Well it's a fact that certain editors are contributing more noise than signal; c'est la vie… The same people can insist that something they don't like is a BLP violation, whereas something they like is not, while making evasive responses to any issue of substance. C'est la vie sur le wiki… — JFG ^talk 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

After another look I see the "lolololol" looked like it was part of my sig. Now you can see one reason why I've failed as a comedian: awful delivery. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are restricted to 0rr (including manual reverts) on post-1932 US politics articles that already have the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

You have been sanctioned for violating the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections after multiple warnings.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Appeal filed. — JFG ^talk 14:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm a tad unpopular 'round these here parts, so I'm not sure referring to my sympathy note will have a positive effect on your appeal :( For the same reasons, I don't plan to comment.

Still, best of luck. Factchecker_atyourservice 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I should hope that a formal enforcement board is not treated as a popularity contest. But thanks for stopping by! — JFG ^talk 15:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What Factchecker said, unfortunately. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sanction modified to only apply to the relevant article for just three days. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thanks for taking my explanations into account and limiting the sanction. I took the liberty of fixing a typo in your link. — JFG ^talk 00:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(Sigh) AN after AE? This must be St. Lawyer's Day… — JFG ^talk 00:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian

It appears that you may have misread my words "There's no point opening an RfC without waiting for it to demonstrate consensus on whatever the question." regarding the RfC on the Russian interference article. My comment relates to the ongoing edits prior to the resolution of the RfC not prior to its having been opened. SPECIFICO talk 11:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please respond on the article talk page. Obviously nobody can control whether editors are touching the lead section during the RfC. — JFG ^talk 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My comment did not relate to what other editors are doing. My comment related to your response to my post, which appeared to me (from your reply) to misunderstand the point I was trying to make with the words I quoted above. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is about the RfC, therefore it should be in the RfC section. It's nothing personal. When I said I couldn't make sense of your comment, I guessed that other editors may be puzzled as well, so your explanations of what you mean would be beneficial to all participants. Have a nice evening, — JFG ^talk 16:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation at Russian interference

You have made 2 reverts of the "Trump-friendly conspiracy theorists" language at Russian interference.

17:05 3 May 2017. [28] 03:21, 4 May 2017. [29]

Please undo your second edit, which violates DS. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Here you go again. — JFG ^talk 15:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a violation but SPECIFICO's behavior isn't much better. JFG waited almost ten days for a response from you and you did not continue in the talk page discussion after you reverted. JFG, please self-revert after SPECIFICO continues discussing on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. Back in mid-April I did work towards consensus and found agreement with other editors, while Spec retreated from the discussion. Hence I consider my 17:05 edit to be an implementation of consensus, not a revert, per my edit summary quoting the archived discussion. — JFG ^talk 17:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The change itself was made yesterday and the agreement was with one other editor. Please self-revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done.[30] But how are we supposed to develop consensus now? I can restore the discussion from the archive, and then what? Solicit more comments? Start yet another RfC? — JFG ^talk 17:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO has already restored the discussion and commented as per my pre-condition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, back to discussion… — JFG ^talk 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

deleting edits

Please don't delete another editor's comments on the article talk page as you did here. It's disruptive and made no sense, especially with that odd edit summary, Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It was confusing, especially due to the repeated section titles of your alternate survey/discussion, and both other editors moved to delete. Sorry I misjudged that you would want to keep the stuff. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: So you undo my delete, then proceed to delete the lot yourself. What was the point of chastising me then? — JFG ^talk 18:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You should read the discussion. I was asking BullRangifer and MelanieN a question. They answered. MelanieN offered that I could delete the lot. But I'd not have known that if I hadn't reverted your deletion of the whole thing. Whatever made you do that in the first place since it didn't involve any of your comments? I couldn't believe you did that. So yes, after Melanie said okay to deleting it, I did. No harm now, but please don't do that again. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

My bad. Didn't realize you wouldn't be able to read the comments! — JFG ^talk 18:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBTITLES

To be discussed on the article talk page

Please don't make unilateral page moves against consensus, as you did, at Trump Tower: A Novel. Please read WP:SUBTITLES. Specifically the express mention of short titles. WP:SUBTITLES expressly says we should keep the page at full title Trump Tower: A Novel for short titles, per: The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes. Please also don't unilaterally change the article information which is sourced to multiple sources, against talk page comments by myself and Drmies, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC) JFG, it is true that there is what one might call self-imposed unclarity in regard to authorship; I didn't look at all the sources but it seemed clear that obviously both authorship options were sort of left open, and "ghostwriter" was used in one of the articles. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC) @Drmies: This has nothing to do on my talk page; please discuss at the article talk page; I just commented there after reading all the journalistic sources quoted: they all call it just Trump Tower and the stories clarify the authorship. — JFG talk 20:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC) No need to patronize, JFG. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the tone, Drmies, I didn't mean to be patronizing. — JFG talk 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks--and sorry for biting at you. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making changes against cited sources and without consensus

To be discussed on article talk page (bis)

Please stop the changes made to Trump Tower: A Novel against cited sources and without consensus. Please instead discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC) @Sagecandor: The first changes I made were WP:BOLD, then when you reverted I discussed. I have clarified my position about the article title and book authorship on the talk page. I also opened a formal move request after you reverted the title change. Authorship of the book by Robinson alone is made clear by numerous sources that you yourself discovered; Trump was apparently only named co-author in a marketing plan and an unpublished "first edition", so that naming him as the author in the first sentence and infobox is a misrepresentation of facts and sources. This is why I replaced "a book by Donald Trump, with ghostwriter Jeffrey Robinson" by "a book by Jeffrey Robinson, originally credited to Donald Trump";[31] I don't see why this simple fact is causing you headaches. Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books, but please don't fall into an WP:OWNERSHIP trap. — JFG talk 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Please don't fall into an making-stuff-up trap. That's not what the sources say. We don't write wiki articles about 2nd editions of books. We focus on first editions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced additions to Wikipedia articles, especially about BLPs

Circular discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do not add unsourced additions to Wikipedia articles, especially about WP:BLPs, as you did, here [32]. Please make sure all additions to Wikipedia have cited sources. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC) This has obviously been a short summary of the indicated main article. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, that's what it was. — JFG talk 03:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @Sagecandor: Please stop making comments about contents on my talk page. Such issue must be debated on the talk pages for relevant articles; I have replied there. If you need my attention, you can use {{ping}}. — JFG talk 03:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Please stop adding unsourced content to Wikipedia, and I will gladly do so. Sagecandor (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC) WP:LEAD sections usually do not quote sources. As Klaus Frisch pointed out, the material was a summary of the well-sourced Filmography of Donald Trump. But I agree it has no place in a bilbiography, and I removed the films about Trump accordingly as well. Generally, it's better practice to raise any such content issues on the article talk page. Personal talk pages are meant for personal communications. — JFG talk 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Please don't add unsourced content to Wikipedia in the future. Regardless of sourcing on other Wikipedia articles. This is not a WP:LEAD section, but an entirely different article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I'm glad you brought up circular. You can't cite other Wikipedia articles as an excuse to add content to different Wikipedia articles with no sources. This violates site policy. Per WP:CIRCULAR. It becomes a WP:REFLOOP. Please, read those. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I know, and this was not the issue in this particular case. The content is gone now anyway; please drop it. — JFG talk 04:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Wrong, it was the issue. But okay, I hope you read the links above, and find them helpful education for you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop unilateral page moves and closing move processes as an involved party

More pointless drama
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop unilateral page moves and closing move processes as an involved party. Please start talk page discussions before you move pages of book articles, especially on controversial topics. Please do not close discussions to which you were an involved party, on controversial topics. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) In the future, please don't close discussions to which you were an involved party. And please stop with all the unilateral page moves on controversial topics with zero discussion. It's just so darned disruptive. All of a sudden a ton of subpages have to get moved, de-watchlisted, re-watchlisted, with no discussion at all. Please, discuss on the talk page and propose such pages moves in the future. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) @Sagecandor: I'm flabbergasted why you would nitpick on a move you yourself agreed to. Besides, it's OK for an involved party to close a move request when there is clear unanimity. Even more so when the only person who contested the BOLD move in the first place has changed their mind. Relax, my friend! — JFG talk 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC) No. Please stop. Please stop all the unilateral actions. It is wrong. It is disruptive. It is non-neutral. These are controversial topics. Please change your behavior. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC) My editing is well within best practices. If you have a behavioural issue to complain about, please take it to some drama board. You are hereby banned from my talk page. — JFG talk 04:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop violating WP:No original research

WP:LISTEN failure, fatal error, guru meditation #00A8732F
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop violating WP:No original research. What you are engaging in is the very definition of this policy. We use secondary sources here on Wikipedia. We do NOT do our own research about words and terms and their earliest usages from our own personal opinions. Please take a moment to read WP:No original research. And also read WP:PRIMARY. Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Sagecandor Following circular discussions in several threads of Talk:Whataboutism, I politely engaged on a personal level on your talk page,[33] and your only reaction was to delete my message[34] and come lecture me about basic policy? Several editors have explained the obvious facts to you, and you just won't WP:LISTEN. I have no further comment. Sorry for disturbing you, and let's end the conversation. — JFG talk 20:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC) You ask that we think The Economist should not be taken on "faith" and refer to "faith" about this reliable source, while simultaneously asking us to trust Wikipedia user's original research instead of a reliable source. Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'. To simply assume the reliable source is wrong, based instead on original research, is the very definition of violating WP:No original research. It can't be any more clear than that. Sagecandor (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Meta-fail
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Great, so you won't even reply when it is pointed out that you are so obviously wrong and blatantly violating site policy ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC) I did say "let's end the conversation"; I am not obliged to WP:SATISFY you, especially not on my talk page. Feel free to argue your point on article talk. — JFG talk 20:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC) So you choose to ignore the quote, Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'. ??? Sagecandor (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop altering posts by another editor

More angry badgering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop altering posts by another editor. You have done this twice now. [35] and [36]. Please stop. Do not do this again. Sagecandor (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC) As I mentioned in my edit summary, you don't WP:OWN the article's talk page, even a thread you started. Please focus on article content, not editor behaviour or technicalities. I should also like to remind you that you have been banned from my talk page[37] following prior incidents of badgering. Just stay away, thanks. — JFG talk 20:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC) As you are refusing to acknowledge basic Wikipedia site policy WP:No original research and WP:Reliable sources, and are ignoring reliable source -- Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'. -- I respectfully ask you the same you asked me, and to please stay off my user talk page, unless you can respect Wikipedia site policies of WP:No original research and WP:Reliable sources as over and above primary source research by individual Wikipedia editors. Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

AE notice

Please see WP:AE for discussion about your behavior. Sagecandor (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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 for editors. 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! Thanks for helping out, I know you may be busy with that frivolous AE complaint against you right now, but it'd be great to have your input at DRN. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Notification of AE

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JFG

Casprings (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Your complaint is unfounded: this article is not under 1RR. — JFG ^talk 17:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Amicus brief

"... and exhibits no battleground mentality" - uh, seriously? If there is one key characteristic of that user, it's a battleground mentality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Combative yes, disruptive no. I've seen much much worse. — JFG ^talk 19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Be alert!

If you encounter a Colorado- (or sometimes Texas-) based IP following SPECIFICO around from article to article and "protecting" her at her own talk page, it's almost certainly this indeffed sock puppeteer. As long as SPECIFICO keeps restoring his edits and fighting against page protection for articles afflicted by Oneshotofwhiskey's rapid IP-hopping edit wars, he may never go away entirely. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

DS Violation

Presidency of Donald Trump: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

The source states that any concrete result from this order is very much to be determined in the future. The order itself merely recites a principle without specifying the application or implementation. That's not "OR" but rather a reading of the primary document that's evident on its face and confirms the RS discussion of it. If you've not done so, it's time well spent to read the order.

At any rate, do be a champ and undo your violation so that you can pursue your views on talk and perhaps even find additional discussion in other sources that flesh out an NPOV secondary view of the order. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What DS restrictions?

Your edit summary "Also, please mind DS restrictions" ? [38] SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The usual. Merry Christmas! — JFG ^talk 21:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Snark edit summaries and WP:ASPERSIONS are disruptive. Put that in your stocking. There's no DS issue with a noted expert analysis in an external link. Try using talk next time. You'll get better results. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Where did you read snark? You reverted a challenged edit, that's all. No big deal. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lord have mercy. You are well aware that the Russian interference article does not have the "consensus" restriction. Doesn't wash. Fröhliche Weihnachten. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

McCabe

This edit was made at 12:54, Dec 23. It restored BLP violating material that a single purpose brand new created throw away account started an edit war over. Discretionary sanctions were added to the article at 10:45 Dec 23, more than two hours prior to your edit. As such your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by "jumping in first". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

AGF much? — JFG ^talk 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Waste of energy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's about your conduct, not your soul. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Stop stalking me, and my soul will be thankful. — JFG talk 23:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC) It's called "watchlist" -- would you like to be removed? The edit was garbage, so it would have been reverted regardless of whether one little old lady has your page among a couple thousand on her itchypage. Meanwhile, your POV language tilts with the passive voice stuff continue, and it's not just Sig.ra Specfico who has noticed. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Yes Signora, I would appreciate to be removed from your watchlist, so that we can both focus on productive, enjoyable and collaborative editing in 2018. — JFG talk 00:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC) I've seen little of that from you. It's too bad, given the amount of time you devote to the politics articles. I see consistent POV twists of language and passive-aggressive disruptions, for example the one that prompted Marek's visit here, and to which you could have responded with a simple correction of your BLP-dicey edit. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC) You really can't help ABF'ing? You really can't help attacking editors who don't share your own POV? You really can't help criticizing other people's writing style, despite your own shortcomings in this department? You really can't help snarkily invoking snark when none was meant? You really can't help continuing a sterile discussion when politely asked to stop? Oh well, at least I hope you're having fun; unfortunately I have long ceased being amused by your digressing talents. Sad! — JFG talk 00:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Well, just for the instant recap (as the US sportscasters say) -- two NPOV editors come here to point out an error you made. Instead of dealing with the substance of those friendly messages about one action in your long life, you immediately posture that your "good faith" is under attack. And FYI, as long as you keep replying with questions, I will answer you. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions

ay, come on, this is obviously restoring challenged edits without consensus - which is a violation of the discretionary sanction. Please undue it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to address this or not? I've waited till you resumed editing, but now I'd appreciate a response.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: You got it backwards: I was simply reverting your removal of content that had been around since the early days of the article. That's called "challenging an edit" in DS parlance, now your next step is to obtain talk page consensus if you still believe this material should be removed. — JFG ^talk 09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, "undue it" was funny, will steal! — JFG ^talk 09:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

DS Violation

Hi JFG. You may not realize it, but your edit here restores content challenged here, that was originally added here. As far as I know, you did not obtain consensus for restoring this challenged content, which puts you in violation of the article editing restrictions. Would you please self-revert?- MrX 🖋 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was challenging Specifico's removal of relevant information, but didn't realize it had been added very recently. Will self-revert pending outcome of the ongoing discussion. — JFG ^talk 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works - you know that. Do you really want to be blocked? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread. I thought you meant you would self-revert depending on discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the required warning that you reinserted the content I challenged at Racial views of Donald Trump here: [39]

In case you did this by mistake, please be advised that this content was just added yesterday and that my removal was a challenge by revert. Your reinstatement was therefore a DS violation. I expect you to undo your violation and engage with the other editors who were already discussing this on talk at the time of your re-insertion. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have self-reverted pending outcome of the discussion. Next time, please use a clearer edit summary when you do challenge recently-added material. — JFG ^talk 18:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Excellent instincts. My edit summary has nothing to do with it, btw. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump revert

Re this, that is not what is linked in the citation in which the |quote= occurs. From Template:Cite news: "quote: Relevant text quoted from the source." Not relevant text from some other source. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Both quotes are from the exact same ODNI document; the original quote in the article comes from the "Key Judgment" summary on page 7, and you changed it to a paragraph from page 11 in the "Russia's influence campaign…" section. They say mostly the same thing, so it's not very important whether we use one or the other. I would favor the "Key Judgment" piece, because that's how the source (ODNI) chose to summarize their own findings. Incidentally, I think we shouldn't use the New York Times in this citation template, because it's not their document, and many readers can't access the NYT. Surely this file can be sourced to the DNI government site? Or wikisource? — JFG ^talk 16:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Mandruss' version is the NPOV choice for article text. The other is cherrypicked out of context and it obscures the meaning for our WP readers. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

They say mostly the same thing, so it's not very important whether we use one or the other. Quotations are verbatim by definition. If you want to change the source, go ahead, but that's different from what you did in your revert. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"Mostly the same thing" is a time-honoured wormhole. When POV language keeps cropping up in these helpful little copy edits and tidy-up, it takes a lot of work to keep articles neutral. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

My talk page is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
JFG - I think of particular note for the sake of fact checking and verifiability is to note that the old news articles are based primarily on anecdotal evidence (and why RECENTISM is problematic) whereas the more recent NYTimes article dated Feb 16 2018 is based on a mix for proper WEIGHT & BALANCE. What needs inclusion is the updated report in the Times article (Vox has a similar article) regarding the Russian investigation and resulting Mueller indictment (a legal document with credible evidence not just heresay) which the Times states matter-of-factly: "The indictment does not explicitly say the Russian government sponsored the effort, but American intelligence officials have publicly said that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed and oversaw it." Editorial judgment tells us that when writing for this encyclopedia we stick with statements of fact, and use in-text attribution to include what "anonymous sources" say. I also find it rather interesting that indictments were issued knowing full well the offenders would never show up. Hmmmm. The article also states that these same Russians supported Bernie Sanders but from what I understand from reading Wikileaks emails, the Clinton campaign didn't need any help from the Russians to eliminate Sanders from the ballot. j/s. The Vox article corroborates the NYTimes article but also provides more information, including various other activities by the Russians demonstrating that it wasn't always support of Trump (and what the NYTimes chose to focus on for obvious reasons); they also tried to cause damage to Trump's candidacy when organizing rallies in an effort to create discord. Example: of the 2 rallies they held in New York on the same day — one showed support for Trump and the other was anti-Trump. The latter is important information that belongs in Trump article, rather than the old news that has long since been disproven or not proven at all; and thus, the reason Masem is spot-on at NPOV/N. Atsme📞📧 19:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC) WP:NOR SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Too funny! What's original about citing a NYTimes & Vox update? Atsme📞📧 20:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Funny indeed that you earnestly appear not to know where the outside world ends and your unique posits and ruminations take the stage. 🎪 Let me say most sincerely: I find that charming. It's just not helpful for editing WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC) BTW, maybe you could check with Masem whether it's a good idea to be canvassing and inviting him all over to these talk threads, or whether he'd rather you not. 😷 SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Please, just answer my question or do you customarily make OR allegations without explaining why it's OR? RE: Masem, I typically try to ping those users whose names are brought up in a discussion they're involved in. I get criticism when I don't and criticism when I do. *sigh* Why does that concern you? It's simply a courtesy. Atsme📞📧 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC) [hides in the corner] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Back to topic: Frankly I don't see the issue with one quote or the other. This snippet wasn't authored by The New York Times anyway, the referenced URL just provides an embedded PDF of the ODNI report; it's not even hosted by the NYT, which is why I suggested to change the source URL (but I haven't acted on this). Then, choosing which part of that report to quote is a matter of editorial judgment. The longstanding quote in the article was fine, I don't see why it should be replaced by another bit from the same document. @Mandruss: what was your rationale for that change? I also don't see why SPECIFICO considers one report excerpt NPOV and the other POV or cherry-picked. The longstanding excerpt, from ODNI's own summary of "key judgments" on page 7, says:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

The excerpt from page 11, as quoted by Mandruss, says:

We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.

Unless a consensus of editors explains why the page 11 excerpt is more relevant than the page 7 excerpt, I see no reason to "cherry-pick" the page 11 paragraph rather than the page 7 "key judgements" paragraph, which has the distinct advantage of being presented by ODNI themselves as a summary of their findings. — JFG ^talk 18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the cite says |page=11, so that was where I looked. What I saw there didn't match the |quote=, so I made it so. If you prefer the page 7 version, the cite needs to be fixed. The page 11 version does include an additional point, highlighted in blue in my diff; so I think that could be the deciding factor. If you think that point is noteworthy, use page 11, else page 7. But I don't care much as long as the |quote= is verifiable via the |url= and |page=. No opinion otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see now, thanks for explaining. Yes, the page 11 snippet adds a sentence about undermining the expected Clinton presidency. I think that's undue in Trump's bio, so I would stick to the page 7 excerpt. Will amend page number in citation template. — JFG ^talk 18:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Any consensus on this POV issue needs to be reached on the article talk page. And after you've repeatedly drawn rebukes for unilateral declarations of consensus, it's unfortunate to need to remind you of that yet another time. The P11 text has "high confidence" right up front, which gives the extract an entirely different thrust. As I've said before, it strains belief that each of these little POV tweaks is just due to your insensitivity to the nuances of English style and usage. Because all these tilts are in one direction, over and over. Your change should be proposed on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If you feel it needs discussion, why not start said discussion? The correction of a page number in a cite is hardly something that needs prior consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I didn't change a thing: Mandruss changed the quote, I reverted, then he came here to discuss. If you feel strongly that a change is needed, you can go and suggest it on the article talk page. And please quit your aspersions against me, you've been peddling the same false accusations ever since we crossed paths on Wikipedia, and I have grown tired of that attitude. Over and out for today. — JFG ^talk 21:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read up on the meaning of "aspersions" when you're done with your nap. There's no hard feelings and no aspersions, just the facts. You know it is nothing personal and it is nothing that has originated with me. I want you to feel better, and I respectfully suggest that if you continue to ignore and deny the feedback you're getting from many experienced and competent editors, it's just going to continue to feel frustrating for you. Pardon the unsolicited advice. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: All aspersions are seen as "just the facts" by the person making them, so I miss your point...er, rather you don't have one. "Hard feelings" and "nothing personal" have nothing to do with it. You have a chronic difficulty with AGF that is not limited to JFG, seeing bad faith with precious little evidence of it, and your snark doesn't help either. I've mostly kept my mouth shut about it because I haven't been the target of your aspersions, but that's only because I stay out of the more contentious political issues that get you so wound up. I'm asking you once to moderate your accusations of others. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder sometimes...

...how many kids learned balance by riding a see-saw? Scuba diving teaches neutral buoyancy and what it actually means in RL to be neutral. Could it be that far too many kids spent too much of their time on a merry-go-round and the spinning made them lose all sense of balance and neutrality in adulthood? Spinning = 0 balance + 0 neutrality. A humorous essay in the making? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Donald Trump

Hi JFG – I noticed this edit that you made to Donald Trump. I believe this revert was incorrect. As you point out in your edit summary, the quote you added is on page 7 of the report. However the citation specifies page 11, which does contain the text Mandruss specified. Could you please restore the older quote, unless there is a reason not to? Thanks, Prodego ^talk 03:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prodego: Mandruss changed the longstanding quote and I reverted, then we discussed and found out that the problem was a mismatch between the quote and the page number in the citation template. Subsequently I have corrected the page number, so all is fine. — JFG ^talk 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You can do better than this

This revert [40] was not collaborative. You caught an error I made, mentioning the TV series without removing the out of place mention of it a few sentences later. You know very well that I don't put OR in articles. Your comment about OR/SYNTH is nonsense, as it is well known and documented why and how Trump got into all these non-capital intensive businesses after he went tits up. You could easily have found a source if it bothered you or you could have tagged it rather than revert and trigger the undue requirement to go through a "consensus required" process on talk. Very disappointing to see this. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comments belong on the article talk page. — JFG ^talk 08:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Read carefully. It is my hope you will not return to past behavior. Belongs not on the article page. SPECIFICO talk 08:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How ironic that as soon as I resume editing, you are instantly reverting to "past behavior" by stalking my every move. I am thus inclined to remind you of the many instances in which I had to reluctantly ban you from my talk page. Please stick to article contents and stop snarkily badgering your fellow editors. You know very well how often you have been warned, by several people. Have a great day. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no other way to describe it....

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...he is being railroaded. It happened to me back in 2015. It's sad because of what it's doing to the quality of the articles in WP. I've tried hard to AGF, but I'm not as sanguine about the future of WP's political future if they're basing so much on biased journalistic opinion, questionable sources, speculation and inaccurate commentary. 😔 BTW, have you seen this article? I'm not sure I agree with it completely but that doesn't make it any less interesting. Atsme📞📧 22:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC) Just a note on not getting dragged down with me Atsme. Officially, I am supposed to acknowledge the "consensus" of NOTLIKINGTHAT, and take it to some noticeboard or official venue of dispute resolution. But if you've seen how those things work, it would really only be a larger version of the utterly off-topic and/or misrepresentative beatdown that occurred at article talk, or, in the case of the formal venues, a highly formalized months-long version of it where the PAs are more subtle. The flip side of it, and the one that explains my simple dogged insistence on replying to every "wrongbuttal", is that dispute resolution and arbcom should not be required to simply cite straightforward reporting from New York Times, WaPo, BBC, et cetera. If every POV contrary to progressive narratives becomes a dispute resolution issue, that just effectively means you can't add anything that is contrary to progressive narratives, no matter how well sourced or soundly weighted and attributed it is. Atsme, you have said you are retired and perhaps you may have time for that--I'm not and I don't. Look at the months we've argued over this one tiny issue! This isn't even some issue of how prominently to feature the ideas of a noted but controversial academic (say, Noam Chomsky) in articles about a subject on which he is not regarded as an authority, or some esoteric crap like that. It's not sorting out any complex subject matter. It's literally just, do we report what the newspapers say? and so far the answer seems to be "no, that would be misleading" (!). Nor did I ever try to present some misleading or skewed impression that Trump was innocent. My original content proposal prominently featured Schiff's commentary saying that existing evidence showed collusion, and his specific claims of non-public knowledge showing collusion, I also talked about how harshly the Nunes committee's proceedings were viewed, etc. I gave a lot of air to the narratives that (1) evidence of collusion was there, or (2) that collusion was clear even without evidence. Then with the more recent issue where I tried to garner support for just quoting NYT, after the iterated objections that somebody might think he's not guilty!, I specifically suggested quoting the NYT ed board speculation saying Mueller "may have a good deal more than he's letting on", which IMO would pretty soundly address the need to mention that evidence may yet be revealed. I noticed that at every juncture that whatever I was proposing was deemed unreasonable, no alternative was on offer, no suggested paraphrasing, nothing but a conclusory there's no way for us to reflect this that didn't pass the smell test. Anyhow though. You don't have to lose sleep or personal WP capital defending me. Same to you, JFG. Factchecker_atyourservice 23:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

If he wanted to unhat you I suppose he could but why would he also remove your comments and leave the personal attack standing?[41]MONGO 12:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

That's bad form indeed. Not sure how to handle it: ping an admin? — JFG ^talk 12:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly this editor is just having a bad day…[42] — JFG ^talk 12:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm no angel but the ongoing insults an personifications made by many there in those discussions are growing more than tiresome.MONGO 13:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I pinged NeilN to the discussion over there - I wasn't aware any of the above had happened. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Methinks there's too much thin skin around here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you defending that statement, BR? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No. It's such a low level expression of personal opinion that it's best ignored, rather than allowing oneself to get offended, per "...object too much..." Rise above it and take the high road, rather than using it to escalate conflict. Just let it slide. You all are better than this type of petty sensitivity. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hardly petty...the bias in that statement is even more disconcerting...there were more horrid *%&# and gullible %*&# than Democrats had assumed - it goes beyond the pale, but worse yet is the fact that it was unhatted. I was willing to let it go until then, and I expected to see an apology but what we got instead was a double-down, I stand by my comment response. The more I think about such an insulting statement being defended, the more convinced I am that it needs admin attention. It should not be ignored. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You just demean yourself and damage your credibility. You're better than this pettiness, but it's your call. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's no longer tolerate this ongoing insults and harassment from Scjessey. All I see is that editor showing up to lop some snide comments and insults on the talkpage and never even edits that page. It's classic trolling as far as I am concerned and is AE remedy violating.MONGO 14:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. PackMecEng (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

🎩 ing

I think this should start after my comment which was very much on topic and why I did not support inclusion. It went downhill after that....^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. Looks like your comment unwittingly started the discussion drift, so I thought better to bury it with the others. No offense meant, obviously. — JFG ^talk 17:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Scjessey talk

Since you are indirectly invoked, I think it only fair to point you to this discussion as a courtesy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. These editing restrictions are a minefield indeed. They should not hamper good-faith collaboration, but rules are rules and we must all tread carefully. I will comment on your talk-page thread. — JFG ^talk 17:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hatting

We're done with this. — JFG talk 22:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your now hatting innocuous comments while at the same time providing this and this? Whatever. The entire discussion is rife with nastiness and loaded with hate filled rhetoric so why not just hat the whole thing and start over.--MONGO (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Yeah, then we can have another discussion rife with nastiness and loaded with hate filled rhetoric. Stellar idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) I actually explained this in reply to another editor's comment on your talk page, but you had erased it while I wrote my reply, so I didn't post it. I was saying that the motivation for my hatting was Scjessey's rant, and your comment by itself wouldn't have deserved this; I included it in the hat because it was also personal opinion, and to avoid more drama of the sort "why do you hat me and not them?" I do agree that the discussion is going sideways, but what can you do when some people insist that birtherism made Trump president, and bail out when asked for sources? — JFG talk 21:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC) I figured as much, but my comment was of a olive branch of sorts, but it did deviate from the discussion and of course brought the best in others that have done a fine job of creating as toxic a discussion page as I have seen since I participated in the GW Bush "dry drunk" fiasco more than a decade ago...[43]--MONGO (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Wish I'd been around to see that. But have you heard of the New York disambig wars? I never figured whether the following comment was sincere worry or epic trolling: No such move! No such change! No no no no, no! Very much opposing this very very bad and insulting idea! Such a move would be insulting and disrupting to the more than 1 billion people of Africa. African children are studying in the schooling systems that New York is a state in America like the state of California or the state of Illinois and that New York City is a city like Chicago and Los Angeles. Wikipedia cannot simply ignore Africa!!! — JFG talk 21:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Bush was not liked especially on Wikipedia...his popularity as we know was rock bottom when he left office, but even so, there is a visceral anger that exists now that makes the discussions at the Bush article look truly tame. I suppose the best I can do is either avoid the Trump BLP or figure out a way to reduce any chance of inciting a riot! I do know this though, we can all waste a lot of time on these difficult topics, and I see I contributed more than 750 edits to the Bush talkpage, or we can find ways to reach solutions and free up our time for more enjoyable and productive ways to spend our energies here.--MONGO (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC) I'm sorry, but the answer to "why do you hat me and not them?" is "because you violated TPG and they didn't." Drama notwithstanding. If we stop enforcing rules because of the threat of drama, guess what will be the result? Increased drama. I reverted that hat before I saw this explanation that your stated reasoning was completely incorrect and misleading. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) That would be a good answer, and I happened to give it to some editors some times. Now, when you unhat saying: "Personal anecdotes", i.e. accounts of personal experience, are quite common on this page, and do not not violate NOTFORUM when they are about article improvement. I also agree, but for the love of God I can't see anything about article improvement in Scjessey's tirade lamenting the outcome of the 2016 election and berating the winning candidate. MONGO's crime was to remind other people of who the candidates were, and with some levity too. An excusable offense in my book. — JFG talk 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC) As I indicated, my revert and its edit summary were responses to your hat rationale, my mind-reading skills being sorely wanting. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Well, I have struck my comment since it led others to go places I actually didn't mean it to...I thought I was being "funny" sort of but it did stray off discussion and that is my fault. I'd prefer to keep it struck if that is ok.--MONGO (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC) if that is ok If I'm not mistaken any editor is free to strike any of their own comments they wish to strike. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your WP:AE filing

There appears to be some confusion here: I don't work for you, nor am required to fit the convenience of your schedule. It's certainly not my job to help you obscure the obvious because it clashes with your political agenda.

I'll note your frequent appearances at WP:AE, and I'll also note your sudden respect for a hardline view of "consensus required" seems at odds with what you said last year: which seems, overall, to suggest that you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles. Calton | Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Try AGF next time. It's true that I don't like the "consensus required" mechanism very much, but it's the rule, and we must all abide by its terms. — JFG ^talk 15:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple of discretionary sanctions alerts for you

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 recently shown interest in 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 any 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.  Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).

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 recently shown interest in post-1932 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 any 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.  Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I'm well aware of all this. What's the matter? — JFG ^talk 17:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, JFG. I thought you probably were aware of it, but, as you probably also know, as long as you haven't received these alerts in the past 12 months, you aren't officially aware. Nothing's exactly the matter, but I thought your demand here for consensus before adding what you called 'a long tirade' (actually 52 words plus footnote) to the lede was a little unexpected. Compare Wiktionary tirade: "A long, angry or violent speech; a diatribe". I'd say your edit summary was a good deal angrier than the text you removed, which btw came from an editor who had not edited the article before. Let's say I didn't think you very welcoming. That's all. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC).

I get it. I was just applying the usual "consensus required" process in place at the Trump bio, especially for the lede section. I also remarked that two of the four people indicted were not mentioned in the body text, which violates WP:LEAD as cited by the inserting editor. Finally, there may be some cultural difference at work, as in my native language "tirade"[44] is not generally a negative descriptor. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What "consensus required process" is that? All I see on the talkpage and in the edit notice is the (common enough) page sanction that consensus is required "before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Italics in the original. Are you saying that's what MastCell did — reinsert an edit that had been challenged? How do you figure? Why would he need consensus? Note, I was objecting to the first part of your edit summary — the middle sentence — that's why I quoted it. Not the second part (the third sentence). Bishonen | talk 18:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC). P. S. Does "long" also mean something else in French? Bishonen | talk 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC).

My reversion was a "challenge" in DS/CR parlance; I did not allege the editor did anything wrong. S/he is invited to make his/her case on the talk page and obtain consensus; you could do that as well if you feel strongly about this content. And yes, the proposed text was quite long proportionately to the lead. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think in their comment above JFG meant something along the lines of "invoking consensus required" when they said "applying the usual consensus required process". Also, per WP:AC/DS#Awareness I think JFG was "officially" aware of the AP2 sanctions per their November 2018 report of User:Calton at WP:AE. In any case, no harm done. ~Awilley (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)