User talk:Jsp722

Hello, Jsp722! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Dorje Shugden controversy

Hi, J. Thank you for your contributions to the article. I added two citation needed flags to a couple of the parts that you added. Perhaps you know of newspaper articles we can cite to verify these points? Emptymountains (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian writing systems

Hi, I've reverted your chages to that article, because they amount to original synthesis and are not supported by any sources. While the next section does say "the Mongolian cyrillic script is phonemic", you interpreted that as "the Mongolian latin script was less suitable", for which there is no evidence. In fact, there are hardly any functional differences between the two alphabets, and it is impossible for you or me to decide which one would have been more practical. On the other hand, of course, we need a source for the political motivation as well, even if it seems highly likely given the sequence of events back then. Because of that, that statement is marked with a {{Citation needed}} tag in the article Mongolian Latin script. Please avoid writing your own conclusions into articles, and before editing a summary, compare the respective main article. Thanks for your understanding. --Latebird (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heidegger

Please discuss your proposed changes to Martin Heidegger on Talk:Martin_Heidegger rather than repeatedly adding unreferenced material to the article. Also, please see WP:BRD. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Martin Heidegger has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 15:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Your recent edit to the page Burma appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Burma appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page Burma appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asma al-Assad

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Asma al-Assad appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Specifying "by some Western media outlets" is unnecessary and leaves an implication that is reflective of a non-neutral point of view. The cited sources speak for themselves. Please don't reinsert this phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Sviatoslav I of Kiev because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irina, it's funny that me too I found the usage of terms such as “pagan” and “paganism” promotional and worth some kind of soapbox. Such blanket, disdainful, derogatory terms are well known propaganda weapons customarily used by fanaticized Christian propagandizers with the sole intent of degrading non-monotheistic religions. On the other hand, “ancestral Slavic religion”, and “ancestral Slavic, Indo-European religion” are a perfectly neutral, accurate, precise, and insightful phrases. Therefore, I undid your changes and request you not to insist on your unruly, propagandistic changes.

You're welcome to your personal point of view. Humanity wouldn't be humanity if we didn't have our own points of view, nor should we cease to challenge preconceptions... but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Please read through the policies and guidelines. This simply is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and your continuing to create a piece of WP:SYNTH in order to avoid the term "Pagan" isn't justified: it's just plain disruptive. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Sviatoslav I of Kiev. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Gentile"

If you have a problem with this word, please discuss it on the article's talk page. Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language you don't like

I have noticed that you are in a campaign to eradicate the word "pagan" from Wikipedia. Its an accepted word in the English language and indeed in historiography, which is used to describe something. You may have noticed me reverting your edits on that. It has been pointed out to you by others than me that your problem with this word is indeed "your problem". I don't think that it is disparaging and unless it is shown to be so by qualified sources, we can't conclude that its a bad word. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be out of town after Tuesday. But before then, if you find an instance of the word "pagan" you feel inappropriate, send me the link and let's use the article's talk page (or this talk page), and we'll kick around some strategies for how best to approach the edit. I realize that's overkill in most cases, but if we get a few done with "manners" under your belt, I'm betting you'll get the hang of it. I have faith in you. And frankly, I'm not very keen on the POV the word so often engenders. Rklawton (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rklawton, thank you for your support! A Google search with “Wikipedia + pagan” gave 1.170.000 results. We might start with an instance which is already on my talkpage, Section User_talk:Jsp722#December_2015, where Iriyna Harpy undid my edit on this page in a quite unreasonable way, I believe, but I chose not insist at that time. If you prefer, I can look for (many) other instances. Thanks again, Jsp722 (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see a lot of potential in the example you've suggested. It's amazing to me that someone would link a person's religion to a generic article that essentially proves your assertion that its use is POV. I see two problems, though. First, your edit summary is confrontational. However, the second problem is more significant. You replaced one sweeping term with another. In this instance, I would recommend researching Sviatoslav I of Kiev's religion along with a supporting source and proposing the change on the article's talk page. You could bypass the POV argument in this case by suggesting you are replacing a "generic term for non-Christian with Sviatoslav I of Kiev's actual religion." So long as it's properly sourced (and not wp:synth, who could argue against that? This approach won't work in every case, but I bet it would work in many of them. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Rklawton that the edit summary can be skilfully improved, and would like to listen to your input in order avoid unnecessary confrontation. Also, I think I have some good references about Sviatoslav I's religious beliefs, and agree that the best way, as already suggested by Irina herself, is to propose any change on the article's talkpage, where the topic can be discussed by everyone. As you have highlighted, I think that one key point is to privilege specificity whenever justified by sources. However, there is an impending votation on a proposed ban on the ANI page, an issue which should be overcome first so that our discussion here or elsewhere may be fruitful. Therefore, hoping to see your vote there, Jsp722 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, start with it. Here's the history of the article from which to track your WP:ES and actual content changes. Please explain what "follower of his ancestral Indo'European, Slavic religion" comes from in WP:RS? The people of Rus' didn't even refer to themselves as 'Slavs' at that time... and the Indo-European? Do you even know what was deities were worshipped. Why are you applying such a generic description of a specific form of a complex system of beliefs. Perhaps you'd also care to elucidate on how, in the context, Christianity is given a positive spin as compared to a Pagan belief system? Read the paragraph carefully as it attributes neither positive nor negative connotations to either brand of belief systems. What is understood by the sources is that the decision was likely more a political one (if you can read Russian or Ukrainian). Again, it is you who are imposing some form of spiritual preference on behalf of individuals where it is entirely possible that conversions or non-conversions to other 'faith' systems had nothing to do with personal preferences but to power-play. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to offer answers to both of you Rklawton and Iryna Harpy, but looks like things have first to be resolved on the ANI page, with the impending votation on a proposed topic ban. Thank you both anyway. Jsp722 (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna, thank you for your input and your willingness to work with us. I'm not keen on the vagueness of the "Indo'European, Slavic religion" label. However, if you read the article Pagan - it's pretty clear that the word "pagan" is far worse as it could mean just about anything not Christian. However, this is not a vote in favor of "Indo'European, Slavic religion". I think the readers would be well served if Jsp could pin down the actual religion with reliable sources and then use that. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pop in on ANI and see what I can contribute there. Usually the offer and acceptance of mentoring combined with good faith editing is sufficient to avoid a topic ban. However, even if a topic ban comes about, such a ban rarely involves talk pages (I could be wrong), and I think you can be very effective on talk pages when taking this new approach. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that editing Wikipedia can be frustrating at times. On the bright side, your observation that the word "pagan" is frequently misused is very useful. On the down side, personal attacks, even oblique attacks on other editors (e.g. "psychological issues"), is absolutely not the way to go about effecting change. Even if/when goaded, simply don't do it. Rklawton (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note taken, remark edited! Jsp722 (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hi Jsp. This is just a heads up that I will be out of town through the end of the week. This may significantly delay my responses to any questions you have, and I wanted you to know that it's not due to lack of interest on my part. I do have a suggestion for the interim. It appears you have made a few new friends during the ANI and that the consensus is to not impose any sanctions on your editing. Therefore, I recommend abandoning the ANI thread and continuing your work on articles. That is to say, regardless of what's posted on ANI, you're better off not responding as there are probably no responses that will improve your position. You've already won. As for your article editing, I suggest focusing (for the moment) on the easiest. In my view, that would be articles where you can replace the word "pagan" with the subject's actual faith along with a link to the related article and one or more reliable sources to back it up. E.g. replace "pagan" with "Hindu" along with an appropriate source (assuming, of course, that the subject of the sentence is indeed a Hindu). In such cases, an edit summary might read: "specified religion and added supporting source(s)". If such an edit is reverted, you might start a talk page heading labeled "xyz's religion" and with a body that reads "How is 'Pagan' preferable to 'Hindu' when [source] indicates this is their faith?" Indeed, you may need no more response than this. However, should you run across a single stubborn editor, it's preferable to create an wp:RfC (request for comment) than take on that editor single handedly. As you noticed with the ANI, a stubborn editor can be overruled when your reasoning is both brief and clear. Lastly, avoid any references to the character of another editor. It distracts from your real purpose - to improve the quality of information in Wikipedia. If a discussion becomes personal in any way, then other editors may argue against your position simply because they don't like you. This is a lesson I have learned (time and again) the hard way. Until next week... Rklawton (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rklawton, thanks for the wealth of information and tips. I'll do exactly as you say in every respect. Even though I may well feel like doing so in the future, I've never hunted articles in order to edit them; usually what happens is that I read an article of my interest, and if something bothers me enough I edit it. Therefore my editing has always been occasional. But, since there is now some unfinished work, I would feel inclined to approach first the edits reverted by Irina Harpy and Hebel. I think both are highly knowledgeable folks, and ready for vibrant discussion in good faith. And since Irina has already “thrown down the gauntlet” as above, I would approach Sviatoslav I's page first. What do you think? Anyway, have a good journey and safe return! Jsp722 (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to start is by speaking to me as I know my way around the subject area, but I'm not sure of how to apply constructively in Sviatoslav I's case. The pantheon of deities would probably the same as in his day, but it may not apply per WP:COMMONNAME in English. I have to check into some Slavic sources and compare them to English language articles and sources. The greatest problem is not to be WP:UNDUE, and not to conflate it with Slavic neopaganism. Just to give you a quick starting point (in case you're interested in the subject), Dažbog was arguably at the top of the hierarchy.

Ping me tomorrow as a reminder for me to do some research if I haven't had time to find anything substantial tonight. We'll see whether we can table a proposal on the article's talk page that other editors find acceptable. Cheers for now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore, I recommend abandoning the ANI thread and continuing your work on articles. That is to say, regardless of what's posted on ANI, you're better off not responding as there are probably no responses that will improve your position. You've already won." That still seems like a good suggestion. This latest "full ban from editing any article" proposal is nothing but inflammatory. The point you are trying to make has been driven home in previous comments. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robby is right - you're irritating people, not effectively making your case. Sorry. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly anyone could be sorryer than me. To quote Robby:

The walls of text are easily explained: Jsp722 seems to be very diligent in taking apart the frivolous and crude arguments and accusations thrown around. Tragically, they nevertheless are repeatedly and mindlessly regurgitated. I don't know how I'd react to such a ridiculous trial. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Jsp722 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but as mentioned above I still think you're not helping your cause with that silly proposal and general combativeness. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My “cause” is “lost” for a long time, Robby.is.on, whence my not-so-silly proposal. Jsp722 (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Like Rklawton stated a few days ago, I think you had most people on your side. That likely has changed since. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Answer a fool according to his folly..."
"Don't answer a fool according to his folly..."

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. My general (though not exclusive) approach is to minimize keystrokes. "They" aren't going to read them anyway. Rklawton (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Temporary topic ban. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Wugapodes (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wugapodes,

There was no “cross-posting”, and no “indiscriminately cross-posting” as suggested by you, because I sent one single post, and only to Ivan Štambuk. Besides, I don't think I tried in any way to influence this user; rather I just invited him to drop in and share “his own views”, if he so feels like.

It's true that this user almost two years ago apparently supported my views on the “pagan” word, and that notifying only him sounds a bit partisan and selectively sent. However, I could not possibly send a balancing note to someone who has held opposing views, just because the only persons ever opposing my ”pagan” edits before the ANI thread were Iryna Harpy and Hebel, and both are aware of and have taken active part on the thread!

Anyway, in order to avoid any doubts, I have deleted the post addressed to Ivan Štambuk. However, I still think it would be fair that he is allowed to know about the ANI thread, if only in order to compensate for those two editors who before the ANI thread were against my view, but who are aware of the ANI thread. Would you still think it is unacceptable to invite him?

Thank you, Jsp722 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not appropriate. That is the definition of vote stacking. Inviting others to a discussion only because of their views is canvassing and will get you into a good deal of trouble. ANI has 6k page watchers, and over 1k who visited the last change. It is already a centralized noticeboard. Advertising to those based upon them supporting your edits is inappropriate. Wugapodes (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I leave as it is. Thanks for the warning. Jsp722 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Bot (anyone there?), sometimes I forget, but usually I re-read the post and correct this and other mistakes. Maybe what you have missed is that in a multi-paragraph post I usually sign on a separate line after the last paragraph. Thank you anyway. Jsp722 (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Pursuant to the discussion here, you have been indefinitely blocked until you can show you have the proper competence to edit here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Jsp722 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Incidentally, you can appeal this block based on the fact that Wikipedia does NOT block accounts upon request thus rendering any vote in favor of a block for that reason invalid. Rklawton (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the reason for the block. The block was due to the editor's lack of competence in editing here. The request itself is evidence that the editor lacks the maturity or competence to edit here. If anyone was brought to ANI on charges (even the flimsiest ones) and their response is to start a new section with a page-long rant demanding that they blocked, that kind of WP:POINTy nonsense is treated for what it is. The rest of us shouldn't have to deal with Jsp722's antics that clearly do nothing to resolve the actual editing concerns. It was deliberately disruptive and that was unanimous. I won't demand a lot or fight if someone wants to overturn this, but the last anyone wants to deal with is unblocking Jsp722, Jsp editing again and then another page-long demand for whatever reason to be blocked indefinitely and then ad nauseum drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky81682, thank you for your decision. Thank you also for having further elaborated on your reasons as above, answering to Rklawton's poderations. However, I remain intrigued by your decision statement, when you say

“you have been indefinitely blocked until you can show you have the proper competence to edit here”

Indeed, if I am “indefinitely blocked”, how, when, where, and to whom, could I possibly “show” that I have developed “the proper competence to edit here”?

In other words, while admitting of a future lifting of the imposed blocking, you have imposed an essentially unfulfillable condition for such lifting.

Therefore, in order to ensure that decisions within Wikipedia are thoughtful, logically sound, and meaningful, I kindly request your clarification on the topic.

Thanks in advance, Jsp722 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Your account is only blocked on English Wikipedia. Go edit at another Wikimedia project such as Commons, Simple English Wikipedia, WikiData, WikiSource etc. to "show you have the proper competence to edit here by showing you can edit without drama on one of English Wikipedia's sister sites. Jbh ^Talk 20:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your tip, Jbhunley. However, since a condition has been imposed by a decision-maker, this decision-maker, and no one else, has to clearly specify it. Such decision-maker has to clearly specify where, when, how, and to whom, a show of “proper competence” has to be performed, and where, when, how, and by whom, it is supposed to be judged of — which unfortunately did not happen. The idea is that decision-making within Wikipedia remains a thoughtful, logically sound, meaningful process, as opposed to some arbitrary, emotionally driven, irrational jaculation. Jsp722 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't necessary. An unblock request that can convincingly show either myself or another administrator that you understand the concerns there is sufficient. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

The ANI incident recently decided by you, Ricky81682, was started by a user essentially objecting

1. to my edits replacing generic, Christian-religiocentric wordings such as “pagan” and “paganism” with specific, neutral phrases such as “Norse religion”, “Slavic ancestral religion”, and so forth; and

2. to my edit summaries, deemed to be inappropriate.

As to complaint #1, I have essentially answered that the discussion about the term “pagan” and “paganism” would belong a talkpage or even a dispute resolution page, rather than a disciplinary ANI page — a view largely agreed upon by others.

As to complaint #2, convinced by learned and experienced editors such as Richard Keatinge, I came to realize that the wording of my edit summaries could indeed be improved, and to this and other effects I accepted the friendly mentorship of another knowledgeable and experienced editor, Rklawton, which started fruitfully to develop, as above visible on my talkpage.

As a result, the thread was arguably well on its way to be closed without opposition — even its initiator showing willingness to discuss the substantial topic elsewhere, and regretting supervenient disciplinary requests.

However, further complaints came about later, now objecting:

3. to my “pattern of editing”, supposedly focusing on a few objectionable words or buzzwords; and

4. to the way of defending myself on the ANI page itself.

Again, as to complaint #3, I offered extensive, detailed explanations about my “pattern of editing”, which were not further responded or objected, and therefore supposedly accepted as good.

In the end, therefore, just what remained as a contentious topic was complaint #4, that is, my way of defending myself on the ANI page itself, nothing else — absolutely nothing else.

Indeed, such objections against my way of defending myself on the ANI page itself were the only argument used by voters for my blocking, and eventually even by yourself in the blocking decision.

While even my most staunch supporters such as Rklawton and Robby.is.on would rather see me less “combative”, in full honesty I cannot regret my defense. It was loyal, even if sharp; it was respectful, even if poking fun of adversaries' contradictions. Nowhere did I engage in anything near to personal attacks, as clearly defined here. Even my controversial “full block request” was not insincere as claimed by some, because I indeed found and find preferable a full block to an endless, fruitless, undecided discussion.

Therefore, if you think that my loyal, detailed, and vastly substantiated defense on the ANI page alone, irritating to others as it may have been, is a reason to curtail my edit rights on Wikipedia, I have nothing else to say and accept your decision; but if you believe that the edit rights of an editor should be judged essentially according to their behavior and contributions as a content editor, not by the irritation of others on an ANI page, here is my unblock request.

Thank you for your attention, Jsp722 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use the unblock template above and see if another administrator will be convinced. I'm not. I couldn't care less about the dispute at ANI. I was concerned about your choice to respond with a childish demand that you be blocked entirely. I see no point in unblocking and waiting to see if you respond to the next dispute with the same attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ricky81682 for your kind clarification. Now I see that your only glitch has been with my “full blocking request”, an understanding which greatly encourages me and simplifies the discussion.

In this regard, I said above that “[e]ven my controversial “full block request” was not insincere as claimed by some, because I indeed found and find preferable a full block to an endless, fruitless, undecided discussion.”

Indeed, after 16 days of uninterrupted, relentless, exhaustive discussion, with me answering in full detail in my 79 often long, researched, and detailed posts every single qualm about my edits, and despite many conciliatory proposals to end the thread, there was absolutely no sign of any decision by an administrator.

You might consider that this was nothing short of an ordeal. You might consider as well that such an ordeal could only take place because of an inaction from the side of administrators.

Should then I bow to an unjust (as I see) partial ban, or keep discussing endlessly and fruitlessly, thus harming my very life and health?

Therefore, I beg your pardon to disagree, but there was nothing of childish to my life-protecting attitude. If anything, “immature” would be indeed prejudging of it.

However you may see it, you clearly said that “an unblock request that can convincingly show either myself or another administrator that you understand the concerns there is sufficient”.

Now, here is my unblock request, and I definitely understand your concerns, but am I supposed to promise that, on an hypothetical future dispute, I would sacrifice life and health for the sake of an abnormally endless, fruitless, and undecided discussion, or alternatively give in to unjustified claims?

I've been editing hundreds of articles since 2009 without entering one single dispute, always giving in to other editors in the few cases my edits were reverted. However, having been reported to an ANI page for, so I believe, unjust reasons, I felt the need to defend my views, which I did to the limits of my strength.

All I can promise is that I'll keep offering honest edits and honest responses, avoiding needless disputes, as I have always done. My very past is the guarantee of my promise. If, however, I'm pushed beyond physical limits to defend my views from relentless, often unjustified, if not cavilous attacks, without any decision from an administrator, even after abnormally long time, and extension of arguments, how can I promise to sacrifice life and health for the sake of such views?

Thanks again for your attention. Jsp722 (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that indicates that unblocking you will not just create more drama for the future. Rather than responding with an ounce of humility or simply keeping your head down and being quiet, you chose to go on an ego trip and make a spectacle and it backfired. Terribly. I will state this for a single and final time. If you wish to be unblocked, use the unblock template above with the wording {{unblock|[Reason why]}}. Your lengthy and dramatic monologues are not amusing, cute or entertaining and give me no reason to unblock you and leave you to bother more people here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of administrative powers

Ricky81682 says: I see nothing here that indicates that unblocking you will not just create more drama for the future.

What you call “drama” is just your own failure to intervene and put an end to a thread strictly dealing with content issues even after 16 days and more than 140,000 bytes, despite the repeated requests of many respected editors to that effect.

Ricky81682 says: Rather than responding with an ounce of humility

I believe that there is no “humility” required from any Wikipedia editor beyond exposing their views with civility and on the basis of reasons, which is precisely the case with every single post of mine.

As refers to you, instead of showing the humility to recognize your mentioned failure, you resorted to imposing disciplinary sanctions in a surprising bid to disguise the same failure.

Ricky81682 says: or simply keeping your head down and being quiet,

I believe that no Wikipedia user is supposed to “keep the head down and be quiet”, and that any Wikipedia user is supposed to stand by their views, as long as they are able to do so with civility and on the basis of reasons, which has been precisely the case with me.

As refers to you, it seems that you fell prey to an abusive pattern of debauchedly wanting to impose on users abject humiliation and silence, which would fit maybe a dog trainer, but definitely does not fit your position as a Wikipedia administrator.

May I remember you that “[s]ubject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions”, and that “[a]dministrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.” as per WP:ADMINACCT guidelines.

However, your biting, abusive, debauched, abject demand that a user “keeps the head down and be quiet”, goes beyond any conceivable limit of civility, which is even more unacceptable as it comes from an administrator.

Ricky81682 says: you chose to go on an ego trip and make a spectacle and it backfired. Terribly

While you are entitled to your personal opinions, they by no means justify your shocking, incivil, abusive behavior.

Ricky81682 says: I will state this for a single and final time. If you wish to be unblocked, use the unblock template above with the wording {{unblock|[Reason why]}}.

Before even wanting to be unblocked, I want that you apologize for your abusive, incivil, aggressive behavior, unfitting a Wikipedia administrator. Then we can go forward to other issues.

Ricky81682 says: Your lengthy and dramatic monologues are not amusing, cute or entertaining and give me no reason to unblock you and leave you to bother more people here.

While I do not feel personally affected by your statements, I do care if a Wikipedia administrator breaks the limits of civility, and abuses their administrative powers, as you do, trying debauchedly to inflict personal humiliation and abject “silence” on users.

Jsp722 (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not much of a dialogue anymore but it's clear that the closure requests all followed your nonsense demand for a block, given the numerous calls for a stop to the "trolling" behavior you engaged in. This isn't a debate class; it's a project to create an encyclopedia. I can't even imagine what your talk page discussions are like if this is the format you use to communicate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Law of Holes

Keri (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this user continues to abuse fellow editors and is clearly not interested in regaining editing privileges, I've blocked his/her ability to edit this page. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a really bad call. This isn't much of an attack. It's long winded and it questions the ethics of an admin.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a really bad job checking out this page's history or the user's contributions and failing to notice the offending post that I removed. Rklawton (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was instructed twice separate from the notice that they can ask for someone else to review it. They were informed of what they needed to do to get unblocked and instead of focusing on that, they continued on with ridiculous long-winded pointless monologues repeatedly pinging me with no actual movement towards an unblock. I don't care about it as an attack, it's a misuse of the talk page to use it for these point of meandering rants. If you think that's an concern about admin ethics here, you or anyone else can take either my block or now Rklawton's user talk page removal to the proper noticeboard for review. Again, review the 140k ANI post and see if there's much other than an editor with a serious WP:NOTHERE problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jsp722 can't edit his own talkpage anymore. So he is not able to use the template in which he should have expressed his unblock request. He still has other means to do that if he seriously want's to evaluate the situation he's in now. If he is seriously contemplating to use his option for requesting an unblock, he should use that option and engage in dialogue about the matter at hand, instead of posting pamphlets about perceived injustices. He can still do that and I would encourage him to do so. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jsp722. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]