User talk:Jack.B.2007

November 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.edit of concern --Hipal (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What 'edit' would that be? I haven't made any edits to any Wikipedia pages, besides my own personal page. You mean my comments on the Dr. John A. McDougall discussion page? The ones that criticize the existing article? How exactly is that serving the public interest by saying there will be no criticism of existing articles? please explain and elaborate here or I will remove this message. ~~ Jack.B.2007 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal. You still haven't answered my question. What policy of Wikipedia did I break? I clearly did nothing wrong other than being outnumbered by a bunch of people with a different viewpoint on a controversial entry. This is a discussion page. Wikipedia doesn't want discussion or input? I think you're just threatening me to let me know I'm not welcome on Wikipedia, even though I've been editing here since 2009. Let me know if you have a different tack. ~~

See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS#4, 5, 6; WP:AGF; WP:FOC; Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Final_decision --Hipal (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could translate that into English or actually write here what I requested you to put here, in the first place. You haven't made any sort of effective case that I have violated any policy. you've definitely let me know that I am not welcome. I'm wondering why that is? Sounds like you have an idealogical problem with my editing or what has been said about me on Wikipedia in the past. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see that a helpful reply, but just another example of the problems pointed out. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would reply in the same way. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome here. The behavior you are demonstrating here and in the diff are not. --Hipal (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 22

Do not use article talk pages to tell us how crap we are. Also read wp:blp. Maybe also WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you do not wish to donate, please do not do so, but do not try and use the threat to get your way, it will not work, Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the whole point of a discussion page in some sort of democratic endeavor is to have an honest and open discussion. So you are threatening me because I have a minority opinion? That's not very encouraging. And who is "we"? I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for many years. You apparently misunderstand what I'm saying on some of these discussion pages; I'm saying Wikipedia is beyond broken in this regard. I don't expect it to change. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe it's December 2 in most parts of the world, at least on this half . Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I am asking you to read and obey our policies. And no we are WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't want the discussion about the quality of the article? It's quality is poor. Sometimes you have to get systemic with your analysis to really get to the root of the problem. Sorry if I've offended you. I hope Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against anything I've actually done. Maybe you could go more into detail it for those that don't like reading jargon or clicking on links? d why don't you just give an example specifically of what policy I've broken. Thanks Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, we should note here, since this is a public page, that you were upset with my recent comments on the Graham Hancock DISCUSSION page of Wikipedia. That is what all this criticism of my work is about. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK wp:npa [[1]] "seeing that kind of arrogance and stupidity evidenced on pages such as this". [[2]] might violate wp:soap as it is (in effect a call to action "The answer is to dump Wikipedia, as it has now become the Facebook of the Internet encyclopedia realm" and "Look up the Knowledge Standards Foundation, led by Larry Sanger." WP:PROMOTION arguably. wp:blp and wp:fringe "just for a little context about scientific orthodoxy and its viciousness towards those that have competing ideas...", "He's getting this blowback from those that are attached to the status quo, despite abundant evidence that they are likely mistaken..". In fact this "If Wikipedia had any fairness or honor at all, it would allow competing articles on the same platform." is the only line that is actually about improving the article rather than telling how unfair we are. This is my last word here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You're still using a lot of jargon and links, but I'm starting to understand what you're upset over, apparently. I think what you're saying is that you think the quality of the Hancock article is fine and that the only person that has a problem is me. You are saying that I violate Wikipedia policies by criticizing the quality of any existing article by putting it within context of systemic problems with Wikipedia itself. If I understand what you are saying, it is that I do not have the right to criticize Wikipedia itself on Wikipedia. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can't have a meta discussion about Wikipedia on the talk page of a specific article, see below. You can discuss particular policies and guidelines on their talk pages. We also have various "Village pumps" - Wikipedia:Village pump. Or you can ask at HELP:Wikipedia where you should post a particular comment. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not general discussion forums

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Therese Neumann for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i vigorously disagree with your comment that any comment I made on any Wikipedia page, including that of Teresa Neumann, was not specifically designed to improve the article or to let other editors know that I thought it was at least for the time being, hopeless to improve the quality of that article. It sounds very authoritarian for you to threaten me because I was making a systemic WP comment about the quality of a certain page. Control from the top down---that's what Wikipedia believes.in, and that's why I am so troubled by the behavior of many people on it. It's not the way to a better world and not the way to share knowledge. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, show me where your discussion referred to reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines. So far as top down goes, your lack of experience is the only reason you think that. Of course I have no idea what you mean by topdown. Oh, and where is my threat? I've been trying to give you good advice as to what you can do. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:RudyRatzinger. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their behaviour was also unacceptable, that's no reason for you to copy them. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach [you must acknowledge that you are making a threat yourself right now, if you are actually honest]. I think what most people that comment on my page are really saying is that they don't want any criticism of Wikipedia.

I'm sorry you don't like people to discuss being threatened by other editors. I think it's a serious issue on Wikipedia and please forgive me if every now and then I speak about it publicly. I guess what you are saying is that you are the cops and that we are never to speak any ill of any ill going on this website. That's pretty much what I understand what you are saying... even if another editor is extremely aggressive, we are never to speak of it? Got it. That's why I don't really edit on this platform anymore. It's extremely authoritarian [is that what you believe in?] Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, we have a venue to report threats, it's at WP:ANI. That's the place to it, not to indulge in tit for tat discussions reminiscent of childhood "You're an ...., no you're an ...." We are anything but authoritarian, we have plenty of venues where anyone can take part in debates of policies, conduct, etc. We even have an elected commmittee to deal with conduct the community can't handle. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to complementary and alternative medicine, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image on Kriyananda

Hi, you recently removed an image from Kriyananda saying it was your image and that the CC BY-SA 3.0 license terms were violated. I can't see how that's the case, could you expand on how they were violated please? JaggedHamster (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JaggedHamster It was uploaded by User:Jack B108. Looks like it needs to be credited to that user, or I guess since Jack.B.2007 says he got locked out then to this user. So it can be used if credited. I see no way it can be removed from Commons. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't totally sure if I could revoke the license or not, but I assumed I would get credit on the Wikipedia page using the image, where I think the credit should be. I talked to Wikipedia headquarters, and they said that since I get credit on the Wikipedia Commons page that they were not violating the terms of the license. Wikipedia said that the CC license is nonrevocable, but I am unhappy with how it's being used here, so I asked that it be taken down as a courtesy to someone that has allowed multiple images to be used here for the public good. Wikipedia refused to take it down, but it's been removed from the Swami Kriyananda page, so at the moment I am satisfied. It is definitely my image of the Expanding Light yoga retreat that I took on my camera in 2008. I will just keep in mind going forward how these Creative Commons licenses work. Thanks.Jack.B.2007 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to pseudoscience and fringe science. This is a standard message to inform you that pseudoscience and fringe science is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]