User talk:Jgriffy98

Welcome!

Hello, Jgriffy98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Overexposed (album). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 03:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please refrain from making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. These include adding unsourced genres to various Maroon 5 articles and incorrectly capitalizing genres.Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Bowling is life (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Hymn for the Weekend, you may be blocked from editing. SummerPhD^v2.0 17:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change era styles

Era styles (BC/AD and BCE/CE) are subject to Wikipedia guidelines detailed at WP:ERA. You would need reasons specific to the article's content and consensus on the article's talk page to change the established style. Mojoworker (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat ironic that you say I can't change "the established style", because it just so happens that BC and AD are the originally established styles. I take issue with the fact that people use BCE and CE as an alternative, politically correct form of labeling years. AD and BC were created first, and they have been widely used in calendars since the dawn of the first century. I do not agree with changing an entire pre-existing system for the sake of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.10.234 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you find ironic has no bearing here. You have a flawed understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please re-read the WP:ERA section I provided, as well as the links provided in the welcome message in the first post on this page. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Mojoworker (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly the one with a flawed understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. I will decide what has bearing on this conversation. I don't appreciate the tone of your last response. It's as if you are speaking down from a position of authority, of which you have none. Do not threaten to block me again. The terms CE and BCE are ridiculous forms of political correctness (of which you seem quite eager to defend) that should not be used. My statement about how your post was ironic does have bearing here, because I was making the point that BC and AD are the originally established styles. Wikipedia does not mandate one style over another. I have read through their policies on this matter, and it is stated that BC and AD are the "traditional ways of designating eras". Therefore, your statement that BCE and CE are the established styles is factually incorrect. If you disagree with that, then please state your counterargument. Seek to block me from editing and I shall do the same to you. Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Established style in the particular article. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not intended to "make a point". I made the edits because BC and AD are the correct forms of designation, while CE and BCE or not. Please do not straw man my intentions. I made the edits because I simply saw a correction that had to be made.

But you have been informed several times that your change of era style without consensus is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yet you persist in making the change, despite being reverted by four different editors. You are being disruptive. Mojoworker (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't we have that discussion? You keep going on about "consensus", so please direct me to the talk page where that discussion can be had. Choosing only to revert edits and send notifications does not resolve the matter. Where can we discuss and debate this topic, so as to reach a consensus with the other editors? Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reasons for changing the era style that are specific to the content of the Jewish–Roman wars article, then you would need to propose the change and try to gain consensus for it at Talk:Jewish–Roman wars. If you want to change the overall Wikipedia guideline that states: Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change, then you would need to propose the change and try to gain consensus for it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Mojoworker (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for engaging in discussion. In the future, if someone reverts a change you make to an article and you disagree, discussion is the next step – see: WP:BRD. Don't edit war or you'll likely get in trouble. Let me know if you have any other questions (or take Longhair up on their offer above to help). Mojoworker (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Apologies for my hostile tone. Jgriffy98 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the policy guidelines on "consensus" are vague and contradictory. I do not accept that as a valid reason to revert edits. There will always be disagreement between editors, and I certainly disagree with you on this matter. How are you determining article consensus in this case? Where can we meet to debate the matter at hand? Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Also, you should really read the links provided in the welcome message at the top of this page by editor Longhair. Mojoworker (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Exodus seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WP:RS/AC is part of WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are biased

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said:

"Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2][3][4]"

So yes, we are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry soap, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting my time. That whole speech that you copied and pasted does not address a single concern that I raised. Based on all of the evidence I see on the Exodus Wikipedia article, everything you just said is complete nonsense. You are NOT biased in favor of science and reasoning. As I have just pointed out, you are not being honest, and have no idea what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you for the condescending reply though. Also, do you work for Wikipedia? Are you employed at the company? You keep saying "we". Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"We" means the community of competent editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop replying to me on two separate pages. I wish to have a discussion, but let's do it on the other page. This will become too difficult to manage. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your recent editing history at The Exodus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. --regentspark (comment) 01:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my talk page to discuss article issues

And you complaints about Wikipedia also belong on the appropriate talk pages. Doug Weller talk 05:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: My apologies. I didn't mean to write as much as I did on your page, but other people kept replying to my posts, and we ended up getting into a pretty heated exchange. The whole thing went on for quite some time. Anyway, would you like to respond to any of the points I made on your talk page? I raised several concerns and would love to get your thoughts on them. You can address them here, or we could converse on a different talk page. Your choice. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, Jgriffy98, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 64.184.10.234 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:The Exodus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Another one here Special:Diff/900496874. SharabSalam (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Please stop trying to harass me. Do not message me or contact me in any way. Stop intervening in conversations I have with other editors, because all you're trying to do is provoke a reaction from me. You never contribute anything meaningful to my conversations with other editors, and you always message me with an extremely condescending and passive aggressive tone. I do not appreciate you as an editor, and I feel like you're actively trying to get my account banned. Do not interact with me on Wikipedia, or we will continue to have issues with each other. I am trying to avoid another confrontation with you. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In this comment you told other users to "go away and let the grownups handle this conversation". This does not meet the standards of civility we expect from contributors to this project. Please consider removing or striking out these (and any other) personal attacks to show your commitment to doing better in this area. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: Hello, Bovlb. Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I have been harrassed several times by editor Tgeorgescu, and I would like for him/her to leave me alone. I have warned him several times not to communicate with me, as the two of us have a bad standing with each other. We have both used personal attacks against each other in the past, so I have been trying to avoid any interaction with him. Tgeorgescu seems to just randomly appear during a conversation I'm having with another editor, even though I have warned him not to message me. When he does interfere with a conversation I'm having with another editor, he never contributes anything to the conversation, and instead makes passive aggressive and smartass remarks. I feel like he's doing this just to get under my skin. Again, I do not want to interact with Tgeorgescu, yet he continually shows up out of nowhere to criticize me. I was considering reporting him before, but decided it wasn't worth my time. Seeing as how he just reported me for "attacking" him, I have changed my mind. How can I get Tgeorgescu to leave me alone? Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: He has continuously monitored my behavior everytime I make an edit or engage with a discussion with another editor, and reports me for violation every chance he can get. I feel like he's deliberately trying to get under my skin in order to provoke a reaction, and he's actively trying to get my account banned. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your question on my page

Wikipedia doesn't really have a venue for private conversations. In any case, discussions about articles should generally take place on those articles' talk pages. If it's specifically Tgeorgescu you're worried about, I'll address him directly. Seriously, Tgeorgescu, don't get involved with Jgriffy98. You'll only inflame the situation. A. Parrot (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Exodus Talk Page

Not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish on the The Exodus Talk page, but whatever it was died a fiery death about 20 posts ago. Trying to help you. Just back away. Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

@A. Parrot: Not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish by messaging me, but whatever it is, that conversation on The Exodus page ended a while ago. You seem like a loudmouth bitch, and I really don't want your help. Just go fuck yourself. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: "Not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish". At least you admit you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe you should get a feel for the situation first before coming at me like smartass. Stop trying to start shit, you know-it-all punk. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ‑ Iridescent 19:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jgriffy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish on the The Exodus Talk page, but whatever it was died a fiery death about 20 posts ago. Trying to help you. Just back away. Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke" This comment was completely unnecessary. The conversation this editor was referring to had already ended, and I had moved on from that situation. This editor was simply trying to provoke a reaction from me. There was no reason for him to contact me, especially with such a condescending, passive-aggressive attitude.

Decline reason:

This unblock request is entirely about another editor. Please read WP:GAB. Instead of talking about other editors, your unblock request should talk about your own actions. As you have not done so, there are no grounds to consider an unblock so I procedurally decline your request. Yamla (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

November 2019

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Book of Exodus. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please delete your comments where you attack the other editor on the talk page. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: No. I'm done. If the editor I "attacked" wants to keep acting like a child, I will respond the way I see fit. Ban my account. Do whatever the fuck you guys want. Jgriffy98 (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your comments. I would suggest not restoring them until you have removed the personal attacks. Civility is a fundamental part of contributing to this encyclopedia. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: The editor I "attacked" needs to keep his mouth shut. I really don't give a shit what he posts. What pisses me off is that you have decided that my "attacks" are the real problem here. In reality, you're the problem for allowing shit like this to continue. Maybe try saying something to the other editor? No, I'm guessing you're probably not going to do that. Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is not a good way to get other editors to help you in a content dispute, even if they are sympathetic to your perspective. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wallyfromdilbert: That's a good point. I'll stop. Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]