This is Jtbobwaysf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for notifying for Kanika Batra article. I like your comment. Thanks for being transparent and reasonable. DAR ( talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) |
A Medalha Surreal | |
Thanks for Cryptocurrency bubble article. FML talk - me at pt 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Thank you Rebecca jones ( talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
I have encountered a lot of hostility over the past couple weeks, both from editors and administrators, directed both at me and at others. Your willingness to engage with me, talk through my concerns, and assume WP:GOODFAITH rather than being hostile and uncivil has really helped take the edge off of the whole situation. I hope you continue to be an upstanding person and you stay with Wikipedia for a long time! Micah Zoltu ( talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
meow
Jung008292 (
talk) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos|Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos]]. The discussion is about the topic Imelda Marcos. Thank you. - Chieharumachi ( talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imelda Marcos; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing valid external links. - Object404 ( talk) 11:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't do what? - Object404 ( talk) 15:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I mostly ignored the end of your response at ANI until now as angered as I was about what you said in the earlier part. Having reading it, while I still find what you've done seriously wrong, I'll try to put that aside as much as possible and implore you directly to change. I have no real opinions about the article. As a BLPN regular I do agree no matter how distasteful someone is, we still need to comply with BLP although I also know such compliance could still mean an article is overwhelming negative but even that being the case, we still need to be on the lookout for problems.
But none of this excuses you using misleading summaries, which yes are basically lies. Such lies actually harm any attempts to comply with BLP and our other policies and guidelines. Instead of talking about stuff we should be, e.g. 'is this source good enough for a BLP', 'is what we say supported by the sources', 'are there enough other sources with a different view we are excluding?'; we instead waste time on silly things. I'm replying so late because I ignored that thread as I'd already spent a lot of time on it and although it's something that is important it's also completely silly.
It's silly because there was absolutely no reason you had to lie in your edit summary if you're here for the right reasons and I'm still assuming you are (hence this message). You could have simply used an accurate edit summary as I've tried to explain 3 times now. If you had done so, perhaps there would be discussion over actual issues with the article. But even if for some reason in a fit of madness you did leave that misleading edit summary, once challenged you could have quickly acknowledged, yes I was wrong. I should never have said the info "failed verification". Here's what the actual problem is... If that had happened the moment you were challenged on the Imelda Marcos talk page, again it's likely that things would be different. With either case, I'm not saying you wouldn't be facing a topic ban, there are other concerns with your editing. But who knows? At the very least it would have allowed discussion on these concerns to take place.
It sounds like your unsure if those 3 sources are sufficient for making the claim, especially in a BLP. That's a reasonable discussion even if some of the reasons you've given why you feel that way are perhaps not that well supported by our policies and guidelines. Yet the only way such discussion can happen, is if you actually articulate the problem. If you instead say "failed verification" and then persistently evade the question "did you actually read the sources?" which also means you can't properly explain what your concerns are, there is no way for this to happen. I myself hate to admit fault, but when you said something "failed verification" when you've never read any of the 3 sources, there's no two ways about it. You've made a major error.
"Failed verification" means I checked the source and it doesn't say that AFAICT. It doesn't mean whatever you meant by it, which actually after all this time, I'm still not sure. (As always, you can come up with edge cases like that I gave at ANI. Or even something like where the topic is the wealth of Imelda Marcos and the source is a biology text book. Although again it's still likely to be better to provide a more detailed explanation e.g. 'this a biology textbook, even if it mentions the wealth of Imelda Marcos, I don't think it's an RS for that'. Still I wouldn't care if it was such an edge case, and think few would.)
As I said at ANI, people should be able to trust what you say (within reason). Yet now every time I see an edit summary from you I'm going to have doubt. Every time I see you say something on the talk page, I'm going to wonder, is this really the truth? That makes editing with you very difficult.
Nil Einne ( talk) 13:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you share with me the reason for the split between BCH and BSV? I've googled and the answer seems political and vague, which isn't helpful. Surely there are a few concrete reasons for the split that we can give on the bitcoin cash article, right? I'm just lost in all this but want to improve the article. Any help/advice? LaceyUF ( talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No big deal because you didn't know, but don't ever modify threads in the archive. E Eng 14:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I was encouraged by your admission at ANI. I agree that a RFC is probably the best way to go. Suggest you start one ASAP and we may just be able to avoid the topic ban for now, but with the clear understanding that it can be imposed should you revert to your previous editing methods. Mjroots ( talk) 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos, you are now topic banned from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed. There was some support for a broader topic ban, so I suggest that you be careful in the broader topic of Philippine politics. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
How is this edit [1] promotional? They are facts, cited by RS's and explains why Buterin is notable. There's nothing in this edit that runs afoul of WP:PROMO that I can see. HocusPocus00 ( talk) 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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. 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!
HocusPocus00 ( talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia. Here is a notice since you are interested in cryptocurrency articles. You have done nothing wrong.
Thanks! Mazdamiata200 ( talk) 02:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What are contributor sources?
I'm new to contributing to this article/crypto in-general.
Other questions:
Thank you, Lectrician1 ( talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
My name is Tijana and I am managing a newly established non-profit project called Wikinvesting. Generally, it concerns a knowledge base creation, where everyone will be able to share their knowledge, experience and information related to financial markets. I saw you expressed interest in topics related to it on Wikipedia and I’d love to discuss the project with you further.
If you are interested, please let me know how can I contact you? Cheers,
TijanaRistic ( talk) 13:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ TijanaRistic: feel free to ask me questions here. I dont take discussions off this platform. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Referring to me, you state "The comments of this bloodofox user appear to be politically motivated (red-pill, etc)". Kindly explain what on earth you're referring to here, particularly the "red-pill, etc" part. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What's your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.10.200 ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This: curprev 05:07, 10 March 2021 Jtbobwaysf talk contribs 4,544 bytes −937 Undid revision 1011214883 by 91.105.10.200 (talk) if you revert again we will lock the article. take your concerns to the talk page undo Tag: Undo
You have some reason why you revert the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.10.200 ( talk) 17:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I would prefer that you would not delete stuff from the article you know nothing about, and I will discuss it on your page, since you're the who who deleted it. Also on the page you told me too look on, there's no explanation about the edit you made. So perhaps you could answer the question? What's the problem?
Why don't you answer original question and stop messing around! A I said before there's no explanation about the edit you made here Talk:Blockchain.com#Sourcing So what's the problem?
Stop whining and answer my question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.14.216 ( talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
To avoid violating WP:1RR, please self revert this edit. You already removed this content once and I restored it. Therefore this is a second revert. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 21:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
— Paleo Neonate – 03:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't disclose it without their authorization, but I believe to know the address they used to edit before. If you suspect a relation with another particular account, WP:SPI would be the place to request an investigation. — Paleo Neonate – 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf I advise against WP:SPI as venue. PaleoNeonate, we would all like to know that, and more. Please send to Arbcom. Fangpila ( talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Fangpila ( talk) 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Gimiv/sandbox Gratis! Gimiv ( talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, what was this? Tinybubi ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Could you please help me to recover this data? ToBeFree ignored my ping. Thanks! If here is not the right process, please advise. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]]
will always work. Another benefit of this method is that the user will be notified about the specific diff, not just the discussion page. This way, I often notify users when removing their
WP:AIV reports, so that they are notified about the removal and can see the reason. The ping above worked too, however.|-
|[[United States National Library of Medicine]]
|08/12/2020
|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/]
|Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?., A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus’ distinctive genome. Karl Sirotkincorresponding and Dan Sirotkin
Jtbobwaysf, was the list similar to this? We can easily expand it on our own with newer sources. Tinybubi ( talk) 15:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Error to add to sandbox. I tried to save to my User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox and got this error "Error: Your action has triggered an edit filter An automated filter has detected I am trying to save a large list of sources, is there a way to figure out which source is offending? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
(cracroftspeerage |dailymail |englishmonarchs |newsoftheworld |mailonsunday)\.co(\.uk|m)
. If it still gives you the warning, try scrolling through the other links listed in the edit filter to see if you used any others on the list.
TG
HL ↗ 🍁 21:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Given your current involvement in the topic area of COVID-19 origins, I am requesting you to make a statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Tinybubi ( talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I find some draft articles about crypto mooving. So I am regarding for the possible help and reviewing! Halakievsk ( talk) 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Halakievsk: i moved your comment here. please create a new section, you put your comment somehow in this middle of this talk page. What are you referring to about crypto moving? Do you mean bitcion miners leaving china? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging Digital Ocean page ( [18:17, February 3, 2021]) Keep it up. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jtbobwaysf, good to run into you again. I did some work on blockchain-related articles when I discovered that fascinating technology back in 2016 and remember you from that.
I have a question for you. You recently made an edit where you removed a {better source} I had requested in the lede of the Ethereum article. I've read some stuff also, and it does seem that Ethereum might be no. 2 behind Bitcoin.
But the article lede makes a strong claim, and cites it with a 2018 article. I couldn't find the statement sourced elsewhere in the article, so asked for a better source.
You said it was obvious, but I would think obviousness might be to only some readers, like those who read about and follow the topic; but heck, I imagine it would not be to many who are even merely aware of the topic, which most humans aren't. Seems it would not be obvious to the global Wikipedia reader, and good articles need to speak to that broader audience looking to learn from a consult of the wiki. It seems to me that, without a current source or some body prose (with sources) that shows the thing is in that position relative to the other cryptocurrency, it's all just WP:OR. And in any case, seems bizzare to source a statement in the lede about today, with a source from early 2018.
Would you reconsider your edit? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jtbobwaysf. I've been working on Draft:Notability (cryptocurrencies). Would you have the time to provide any feedback (positive or negative)? That would be helpful! JBchrch talk 15:40, 9 October 2021 (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 shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 the 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.
Additionally, if you do not self-revert the edit at Alan Dershowitz I will be reporting the tendentious removal against an established consensus in an RFC you started for retaining it. nableezy - 16:19, 15 October 2021 (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 shown interest in articles about 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 the 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.
Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Gs for Bitcoin.com, declaring COI. I noticed that you've previously made edits to the Bitcoin.com article. A month or so ago I suggested some edits for that page (in the Talk section, as is best practice for editors with COI). Would you be so kind as to review the suggested edits? I think you'll find they represent a significant improvement to the content that's currently live, and therefore bring value to Wikipedia readers. -- GS for Bitcoincom ( talk) 00:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ConsenSys logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Please don't edit threads once they've been archived. If you feel the need, you can start a new section and link to the old discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, the group does have a Wikipage; Athlete Ally. And I the reaction from them has been mentioned in multiple sources on this particular issue; Reuters, CBC, BBC, ESPN, i News, ABC to name a few. Would you consider self-reverting? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed that my changes have been reverted. I spent most of the day researching the case. All of the edits are based on case evidence which are properly cited. I also generated WayBackMachine links for all citations to make sure they are permanently accessible. Is there anything I need to do to validate that I am a real person and that the edits were made in good faith? The entire article was a mess, so I made every attempt to write an impartial piece, putting together bits and pieces that were all over the article.
Thanks in advance
Aman Amansaggu26 ( talk) 11:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jtbobwaysf, I am working to improve the clarity and relevance within the Tezos article. As you have shown interest in the cryptocurrency and blockchain industries, I thought you may want to review my edit request. I would appreciate your input and assistance in implementing the changes since I won't edit directly due to my COI. Thanks for your time, Marko at Tezos ( talk) 10:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Freoh ( talk) 11:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at James Madison. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Freoh ( talk) 02:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on James Madison. Thank you. Freoh ( talk) 09:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
curprev 16:00, 10 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 125,131 bytes +1 →top: avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 15:53, 10 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 125,130 bytes +412 →Ratification of the Constitution: contrast democracy with republicanism undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 9 December 2022
curprev 18:46, 9 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 124,642 bytes +416 re-add maintenance tags; please seek consensus in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 01:59, 9 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 124,076 bytes +168 →Slavery: maintenance tags undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 01:14, 9 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,908 bytes −278 Undid revision 1126108314 by Freoh (talk) as requested in talk undothank Tag: Undo 8 December 2022
curprev 14:22, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 124,074 bytes +513 →Memorials: add JMM HS note undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 13:59, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,561 bytes −9 →Slavery: more neutral wording undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 13:23, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,570 bytes −79 →Slavery: removed bit about Madison's cruelty not being "excessive" - feel free to re-add if you can say this objectively and neutrally undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 13:12, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,649 bytes +53 →Slavery: re-worded to match source better, avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 7 December 2022
curprev 23:28, 7 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,596 bytes +243 →Ratification of the Constitution: avoid scare quotes, as per MOS:QUOTEPOV undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 15:42, 7 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 122,970 bytes +278 →Ratification of the Constitution: reverting Federalist 10 discussion with Feldman citation undothank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 20:42, 5 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 122,189 bytes +126 →Ratification of the Constitution: restored maintenance templates - please seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 07:28, 4 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 121,517 bytes +107 →Ratification of the Constitution: cleanup templates undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Your Noticeboard submission was opened and closed before I could respond as it was listed by the reviewer as 'stale' and missing links. Here are many of the missing links which Bbb would require to see; he needs to see the actual links to the edits.
If you re-submit Noticeboard with all the links then it should be more successful.
ErnestKrause (
talk) 18:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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. 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. Freoh ( talk) 13:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Merry Christmas, Jtbobwaysf! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:04, 3 January 2023 (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 shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
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 shown interest in post-1992 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 06:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
See recent false edits by others. Batwoman90210 ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I miss you. Are you still well? I wish you success 95.185.37.144 ( talk) 22:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In this comment, you appear to be doubling down on your accusation that Isabelle Belato was biased in their close of this move request because of their LGBTQ identity. Can you clarify whether this was your intent? Generalrelative ( talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ Jtbobwaysf,
I hope all is well! We did some editing on the Sadhguru page together, and I learned a lot from your perspective. Thus, I was wondering if you could help out in a similar manner with the Ramdev page. I read through the article and the controversy section caught my eye. There are a lot of sources that aren't high quality and present a disparaging view of the subject. If you have the bandwidth - I'd love to get your perspective on the article and discuss ways we can improve it. RealPharmer3 ( talk) 20:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Have you read the newspaper articles? the sources of the articles? it's irrelevant do you say or they say? Are more 400 billion dollars of irrelevant losses? Caused by FTX Bankruptcy! are they irrelevant? -- Peter39c ( talk) 00:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Two banks in bankrupt in 2 days and it's not over!! and this is not irrelevant!!
Instead of posting on the user talk page of a user that you want to report, you should just report to an administrator's noticeboard, WP:ANI. 331dot ( talk) 08:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
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. 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!
Wracking talk! 02:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@ The Anome: I got you from RAA list. Could you have a look at what is going on here. A number of editors want to update to Talk:Avicii#Consensus_on_"committed_suicide" to follow apparent WP:SUICIDE policy but from my view this TylerBurden ( talk · contribs) is WP:EW to keep the content in the article. Wracking ( talk · contribs) put the issue to DR but apparently it got shut down there. I didnt feel like running an RFC for this likely snow close (seems uncontroversial) and while it appears to me to be TE, I am not sure it meets the threshold for ANI as I dont think there is a 24 hour 3RR. Seems to me more of a user behavioral issue where the editor refuses to follow policy, as I would think policy would trump article level local consensus. The SUICIDE content update is not an issue I feel strongly on, but other editors seem to be facing a WP:OWN issue here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about the outcome of that close that I requested. Perhaps a more specific RfC would work better, but I think you went about it the right way. Unfortunately, an inexperienced person editor closed it very poorly. The final outcome probably wouldn't have changed, but a more experienced closer would have navigated a path forward much better. Nemov ( talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey there wiki-buddy! I'm hoping I can attract some interested folks to consider reviewing the Wikipedia page about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for Good Article status. As you may know, ALS is a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease that quickly causes people to lose the ability to move, speak, and breathe. The Wikipedia page about ALS is read over 2,000 times each day in English alone, and often experiences spikes in traffic whenever a celebrity is diagnosed. There have recently been a number of genetic advances made in the space and some recent drug approvals, thanks in part to the momentum started by the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. I've been grinding away at it since early this year but keen to see it improve further, hope you'll consider! PaulWicks ( talk) 13:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Hi, I made this at Julian Assange. The text heading I feel is undue as the sexual abuse allegations were eventually dropped. Normally on other articles we either downplay or remove entirely dropped allegations. This article is controversial and subject of DS. My text change was reverted. I started a talk page discussion Talk:Julian_Assange#undue_text_in_heading. Due to the DS I would think that I do not have the right to change it again, am I right? Would I now need to put it to DR or do an RFC? Wondering how challenged content is dealt with on these DS and GS articles. Note in this same sub-section. Just seemed excessive we have to do DR or RFC for every policy challenge. Also wanted to get an opinion before I went too astray as I did get a ban on another BLP for making edits I thought were supported by policy (I often try to tone down negativity on BLPs of articles that some consider to be about undesirable subjects). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Per WP:APPNOTE I am notifying all the editors (except a couple of ipv6 IP addresses that I assumed wouldn't get the notification) of this Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#18 since you have participated in recent discussions of the same subject. I did this notification my talk page so as not to clutter the RFC. Please comment over at the RFC. @ ArmorredKnight: @ Katakana546: @ Actualjc: @ Shibbolethink: @ Crossroads: @ Michael7604: @ MarkHaversham: @ 49.177.188.175: @ SCPdude629: @ Bakkster Man: @ Eruditess:
Thanks and happy editing! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm KB from Binance. I recently took over for User:RBinance, and I saw you'd been helping them out. I wanted to make sure you'd seen my response to your question about Singapore on the Talk page. Any feedback you have is welcome. Appreciate your help! KB at Binance ( talk) 18:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@ GreenC: I do think it would be useful to create an essay on the use of pejoratives, or at least consider it. It seems more and more common these days. For example I have seen JP Sears called a conspiracy theorist (a common one), Changpeng Zhao was recently referred to as a money launderer, and of course the SBF discussion. It seems there should indeed be some discussion on when to apply these sorts of labels. They are inherently pejorative and one framework to use as a test is if the person previously had a wikipedia page prior to their crime (or simply allegation in the case of a person like JP Sears), as that would at least let us know if the person was notable prior to the actions that are deemed by some as worthy of a label. In general, I dont like the use of the labels, but it seems that other editors really do like them. It seems to one mechanism to more or less vandalize a page of a person whose views the editor disagrees with. As for an essay, I have never written one (a wikipedia essay that is) so I would not know where to start. We also have wikipedia pages like Bernard Ebbers where hte subject is treated quite neutrally (I admire this) and a more advanced type of pejorative in Jeffrey Skilling. My ideal would be something like this:
Just some thoughts. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
essay}}
at the top and that is all.
WP:ESSAY has more info. Perhaps relevant essays already exist?
Wikipedia:Essay_directory. I look forward to reading and contributing to anything you wish to start. --
Green
C 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
What?? No one was discussing sentence duration or any changes to the lead at all in that section. VQuakr ( talk) 16:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I wanted to say, thank you for your comments and edits on the Lex Fridman page. I've been dealing with that page for some months and I've finally withdrawn from it. Certain editors drown me in bureaucracy in order to refute my attempts to balance the article.
I'm new to Wikipedia, and i entered into editing that article without knowing the rules for BLPs. I'm sorry for my initial mistakes. I continued engaging with the page because i still saw it as not representing NPOV. My engagement with the page has been a great learning experience over all, though frustrating.
I had to step away because the editors who're pushing the anti-NPOV content are adamant about that content's inclusion, despite my comments on the matter, and they continually misrepresent the issue I'm raising and make me end up looking like an antagonizer or Fridman sympathizer (which I'm not). I've been trying to add balance to the article. I made edit mistakes initially, but that was due to my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and I've since learned that policy and have avoided making those mistakes again. However, my initial mistakes are held against me by the other editors and used to diminish my credibility, and dismiss my suggestions.
In my recent edit requests, I wasn't asking to remove the content but rather just to move it into a different section so that the article would read as balanced. Currently, there's a narrative being pushed that paints Fridman in a negative light, diminishes his accomplishments and distracts from the actual facts of his career/life.
There have been random editors, over the months I've been involved with the page, that have made Talk page comments about the imbalance and anti-NPOV content, but they have consistently been silenced with bureaucracy from the same editor/s that have been protecting and pushing the content from the Business Insider article.
All that aside, and despite your edits also being reverted, i appreciate you for stepping in with your comments and edits.
You healed me from a case of "bureaucracy-related gut twisting" (I've just found the label for it while writing this comment!)
I felt like leaving this website as an editor, but you gave me the feeling of being defended from a bully, and that untwisted my gut!
I'm grateful to you for helping heal the bad feelings that arose from my engagement in the BLPs section.
I love this website, and I'm going to continue trying to make positive edits to any article I come across.
Thank you for being an editor here: you've encouraged me to keep editing myself!
There's a Bantu phrase/word called Ubuntu, which I'm reminded of in this moment.
Anyways, thank you again @ Jtbobwaysf. I wish you the best! Uhhhum ( talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello and Happy New Year! I thought you might be interested to know that I went ahead and submitted Draft:Richard Teng through Articles for Creation. Your feedback has been most helpful and any comments you have there would be welcome. I'm also curious if you have any thoughts on next steps I should take with my proposed edits for the Binance article? Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 15:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I left some answers to your questions in our BNB discussion. I think we're close to something that is much easier to read, and less jargon-y. Looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 11:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is Jtbobwaysf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
Thank you so much for notifying for Kanika Batra article. I like your comment. Thanks for being transparent and reasonable. DAR ( talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) |
A Medalha Surreal | |
Thanks for Cryptocurrency bubble article. FML talk - me at pt 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Thank you Rebecca jones ( talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
I have encountered a lot of hostility over the past couple weeks, both from editors and administrators, directed both at me and at others. Your willingness to engage with me, talk through my concerns, and assume WP:GOODFAITH rather than being hostile and uncivil has really helped take the edge off of the whole situation. I hope you continue to be an upstanding person and you stay with Wikipedia for a long time! Micah Zoltu ( talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC) |
meow
Jung008292 (
talk) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos|Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos]]. The discussion is about the topic Imelda Marcos. Thank you. - Chieharumachi ( talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imelda Marcos; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Stop removing valid external links. - Object404 ( talk) 11:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't do what? - Object404 ( talk) 15:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I mostly ignored the end of your response at ANI until now as angered as I was about what you said in the earlier part. Having reading it, while I still find what you've done seriously wrong, I'll try to put that aside as much as possible and implore you directly to change. I have no real opinions about the article. As a BLPN regular I do agree no matter how distasteful someone is, we still need to comply with BLP although I also know such compliance could still mean an article is overwhelming negative but even that being the case, we still need to be on the lookout for problems.
But none of this excuses you using misleading summaries, which yes are basically lies. Such lies actually harm any attempts to comply with BLP and our other policies and guidelines. Instead of talking about stuff we should be, e.g. 'is this source good enough for a BLP', 'is what we say supported by the sources', 'are there enough other sources with a different view we are excluding?'; we instead waste time on silly things. I'm replying so late because I ignored that thread as I'd already spent a lot of time on it and although it's something that is important it's also completely silly.
It's silly because there was absolutely no reason you had to lie in your edit summary if you're here for the right reasons and I'm still assuming you are (hence this message). You could have simply used an accurate edit summary as I've tried to explain 3 times now. If you had done so, perhaps there would be discussion over actual issues with the article. But even if for some reason in a fit of madness you did leave that misleading edit summary, once challenged you could have quickly acknowledged, yes I was wrong. I should never have said the info "failed verification". Here's what the actual problem is... If that had happened the moment you were challenged on the Imelda Marcos talk page, again it's likely that things would be different. With either case, I'm not saying you wouldn't be facing a topic ban, there are other concerns with your editing. But who knows? At the very least it would have allowed discussion on these concerns to take place.
It sounds like your unsure if those 3 sources are sufficient for making the claim, especially in a BLP. That's a reasonable discussion even if some of the reasons you've given why you feel that way are perhaps not that well supported by our policies and guidelines. Yet the only way such discussion can happen, is if you actually articulate the problem. If you instead say "failed verification" and then persistently evade the question "did you actually read the sources?" which also means you can't properly explain what your concerns are, there is no way for this to happen. I myself hate to admit fault, but when you said something "failed verification" when you've never read any of the 3 sources, there's no two ways about it. You've made a major error.
"Failed verification" means I checked the source and it doesn't say that AFAICT. It doesn't mean whatever you meant by it, which actually after all this time, I'm still not sure. (As always, you can come up with edge cases like that I gave at ANI. Or even something like where the topic is the wealth of Imelda Marcos and the source is a biology text book. Although again it's still likely to be better to provide a more detailed explanation e.g. 'this a biology textbook, even if it mentions the wealth of Imelda Marcos, I don't think it's an RS for that'. Still I wouldn't care if it was such an edge case, and think few would.)
As I said at ANI, people should be able to trust what you say (within reason). Yet now every time I see an edit summary from you I'm going to have doubt. Every time I see you say something on the talk page, I'm going to wonder, is this really the truth? That makes editing with you very difficult.
Nil Einne ( talk) 13:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Can you share with me the reason for the split between BCH and BSV? I've googled and the answer seems political and vague, which isn't helpful. Surely there are a few concrete reasons for the split that we can give on the bitcoin cash article, right? I'm just lost in all this but want to improve the article. Any help/advice? LaceyUF ( talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
No big deal because you didn't know, but don't ever modify threads in the archive. E Eng 14:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I was encouraged by your admission at ANI. I agree that a RFC is probably the best way to go. Suggest you start one ASAP and we may just be able to avoid the topic ban for now, but with the clear understanding that it can be imposed should you revert to your previous editing methods. Mjroots ( talk) 10:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Per Special:Permalink/985504979#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos, you are now topic banned from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed. There was some support for a broader topic ban, so I suggest that you be careful in the broader topic of Philippine politics. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 10:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
How is this edit [1] promotional? They are facts, cited by RS's and explains why Buterin is notable. There's nothing in this edit that runs afoul of WP:PROMO that I can see. HocusPocus00 ( talk) 15:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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. 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!
HocusPocus00 ( talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia. Here is a notice since you are interested in cryptocurrency articles. You have done nothing wrong.
Thanks! Mazdamiata200 ( talk) 02:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What are contributor sources?
I'm new to contributing to this article/crypto in-general.
Other questions:
Thank you, Lectrician1 ( talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
My name is Tijana and I am managing a newly established non-profit project called Wikinvesting. Generally, it concerns a knowledge base creation, where everyone will be able to share their knowledge, experience and information related to financial markets. I saw you expressed interest in topics related to it on Wikipedia and I’d love to discuss the project with you further.
If you are interested, please let me know how can I contact you? Cheers,
TijanaRistic ( talk) 13:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ TijanaRistic: feel free to ask me questions here. I dont take discussions off this platform. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Referring to me, you state "The comments of this bloodofox user appear to be politically motivated (red-pill, etc)". Kindly explain what on earth you're referring to here, particularly the "red-pill, etc" part. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
What's your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.10.200 ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This: curprev 05:07, 10 March 2021 Jtbobwaysf talk contribs 4,544 bytes −937 Undid revision 1011214883 by 91.105.10.200 (talk) if you revert again we will lock the article. take your concerns to the talk page undo Tag: Undo
You have some reason why you revert the changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.10.200 ( talk) 17:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I would prefer that you would not delete stuff from the article you know nothing about, and I will discuss it on your page, since you're the who who deleted it. Also on the page you told me too look on, there's no explanation about the edit you made. So perhaps you could answer the question? What's the problem?
Why don't you answer original question and stop messing around! A I said before there's no explanation about the edit you made here Talk:Blockchain.com#Sourcing So what's the problem?
Stop whining and answer my question! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.14.216 ( talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
To avoid violating WP:1RR, please self revert this edit. You already removed this content once and I restored it. Therefore this is a second revert. Thank you. Grayfell ( talk) 21:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 18:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
— Paleo Neonate – 03:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't disclose it without their authorization, but I believe to know the address they used to edit before. If you suspect a relation with another particular account, WP:SPI would be the place to request an investigation. — Paleo Neonate – 04:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf I advise against WP:SPI as venue. PaleoNeonate, we would all like to know that, and more. Please send to Arbcom. Fangpila ( talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Fangpila ( talk) 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Gimiv/sandbox Gratis! Gimiv ( talk) 18:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, what was this? Tinybubi ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Could you please help me to recover this data? ToBeFree ignored my ping. Thanks! If here is not the right process, please advise. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
[[User:ToBeFree|ToBeFree]]
will always work. Another benefit of this method is that the user will be notified about the specific diff, not just the discussion page. This way, I often notify users when removing their
WP:AIV reports, so that they are notified about the removal and can see the reason. The ping above worked too, however.|-
|[[United States National Library of Medicine]]
|08/12/2020
|[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/]
|Might SARS‐CoV‐2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?., A potential explanation for much of the novel coronavirus’ distinctive genome. Karl Sirotkincorresponding and Dan Sirotkin
Jtbobwaysf, was the list similar to this? We can easily expand it on our own with newer sources. Tinybubi ( talk) 15:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Error to add to sandbox. I tried to save to my User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox and got this error "Error: Your action has triggered an edit filter An automated filter has detected I am trying to save a large list of sources, is there a way to figure out which source is offending? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
(cracroftspeerage |dailymail |englishmonarchs |newsoftheworld |mailonsunday)\.co(\.uk|m)
. If it still gives you the warning, try scrolling through the other links listed in the edit filter to see if you used any others on the list.
TG
HL ↗ 🍁 21:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Given your current involvement in the topic area of COVID-19 origins, I am requesting you to make a statement in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Origins_of_COVID-19. Tinybubi ( talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I find some draft articles about crypto mooving. So I am regarding for the possible help and reviewing! Halakievsk ( talk) 12:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Halakievsk: i moved your comment here. please create a new section, you put your comment somehow in this middle of this talk page. What are you referring to about crypto moving? Do you mean bitcion miners leaving china? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging Digital Ocean page ( [18:17, February 3, 2021]) Keep it up. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jtbobwaysf, good to run into you again. I did some work on blockchain-related articles when I discovered that fascinating technology back in 2016 and remember you from that.
I have a question for you. You recently made an edit where you removed a {better source} I had requested in the lede of the Ethereum article. I've read some stuff also, and it does seem that Ethereum might be no. 2 behind Bitcoin.
But the article lede makes a strong claim, and cites it with a 2018 article. I couldn't find the statement sourced elsewhere in the article, so asked for a better source.
You said it was obvious, but I would think obviousness might be to only some readers, like those who read about and follow the topic; but heck, I imagine it would not be to many who are even merely aware of the topic, which most humans aren't. Seems it would not be obvious to the global Wikipedia reader, and good articles need to speak to that broader audience looking to learn from a consult of the wiki. It seems to me that, without a current source or some body prose (with sources) that shows the thing is in that position relative to the other cryptocurrency, it's all just WP:OR. And in any case, seems bizzare to source a statement in the lede about today, with a source from early 2018.
Would you reconsider your edit? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hey Jtbobwaysf. I've been working on Draft:Notability (cryptocurrencies). Would you have the time to provide any feedback (positive or negative)? That would be helpful! JBchrch talk 15:40, 9 October 2021 (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 shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 the 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.
Additionally, if you do not self-revert the edit at Alan Dershowitz I will be reporting the tendentious removal against an established consensus in an RFC you started for retaining it. nableezy - 16:19, 15 October 2021 (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 shown interest in articles about 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 the 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.
Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there. Gs for Bitcoin.com, declaring COI. I noticed that you've previously made edits to the Bitcoin.com article. A month or so ago I suggested some edits for that page (in the Talk section, as is best practice for editors with COI). Would you be so kind as to review the suggested edits? I think you'll find they represent a significant improvement to the content that's currently live, and therefore bring value to Wikipedia readers. -- GS for Bitcoincom ( talk) 00:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ConsenSys logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Please don't edit threads once they've been archived. If you feel the need, you can start a new section and link to the old discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, the group does have a Wikipage; Athlete Ally. And I the reaction from them has been mentioned in multiple sources on this particular issue; Reuters, CBC, BBC, ESPN, i News, ABC to name a few. Would you consider self-reverting? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 22:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed that my changes have been reverted. I spent most of the day researching the case. All of the edits are based on case evidence which are properly cited. I also generated WayBackMachine links for all citations to make sure they are permanently accessible. Is there anything I need to do to validate that I am a real person and that the edits were made in good faith? The entire article was a mess, so I made every attempt to write an impartial piece, putting together bits and pieces that were all over the article.
Thanks in advance
Aman Amansaggu26 ( talk) 11:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Jtbobwaysf, I am working to improve the clarity and relevance within the Tezos article. As you have shown interest in the cryptocurrency and blockchain industries, I thought you may want to review my edit request. I would appreciate your input and assistance in implementing the changes since I won't edit directly due to my COI. Thanks for your time, Marko at Tezos ( talk) 10:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Freoh ( talk) 11:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at James Madison. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Freoh ( talk) 02:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on James Madison. Thank you. Freoh ( talk) 09:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
curprev 16:00, 10 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 125,131 bytes +1 →top: avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 15:53, 10 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 125,130 bytes +412 →Ratification of the Constitution: contrast democracy with republicanism undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 9 December 2022
curprev 18:46, 9 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 124,642 bytes +416 re-add maintenance tags; please seek consensus in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 01:59, 9 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 124,076 bytes +168 →Slavery: maintenance tags undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 01:14, 9 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,908 bytes −278 Undid revision 1126108314 by Freoh (talk) as requested in talk undothank Tag: Undo 8 December 2022
curprev 14:22, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 124,074 bytes +513 →Memorials: add JMM HS note undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 13:59, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,561 bytes −9 →Slavery: more neutral wording undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 13:23, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,570 bytes −79 →Slavery: removed bit about Madison's cruelty not being "excessive" - feel free to re-add if you can say this objectively and neutrally undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 13:12, 8 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,649 bytes +53 →Slavery: re-worded to match source better, avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor 7 December 2022
curprev 23:28, 7 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 123,596 bytes +243 →Ratification of the Constitution: avoid scare quotes, as per MOS:QUOTEPOV undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 15:42, 7 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 122,970 bytes +278 →Ratification of the Constitution: reverting Federalist 10 discussion with Feldman citation undothank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 20:42, 5 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 122,189 bytes +126 →Ratification of the Constitution: restored maintenance templates - please seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
curprev 07:28, 4 December 2022 Freoh talk contribs 121,517 bytes +107 →Ratification of the Constitution: cleanup templates undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Your Noticeboard submission was opened and closed before I could respond as it was listed by the reviewer as 'stale' and missing links. Here are many of the missing links which Bbb would require to see; he needs to see the actual links to the edits.
If you re-submit Noticeboard with all the links then it should be more successful.
ErnestKrause (
talk) 18:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
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. 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. Freoh ( talk) 13:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas!
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Merry Christmas, Jtbobwaysf! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus ( talk) 07:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 00:04, 3 January 2023 (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 shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
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 shown interest in post-1992 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 the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 06:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
See recent false edits by others. Batwoman90210 ( talk) 22:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I miss you. Are you still well? I wish you success 95.185.37.144 ( talk) 22:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In this comment, you appear to be doubling down on your accusation that Isabelle Belato was biased in their close of this move request because of their LGBTQ identity. Can you clarify whether this was your intent? Generalrelative ( talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey @ Jtbobwaysf,
I hope all is well! We did some editing on the Sadhguru page together, and I learned a lot from your perspective. Thus, I was wondering if you could help out in a similar manner with the Ramdev page. I read through the article and the controversy section caught my eye. There are a lot of sources that aren't high quality and present a disparaging view of the subject. If you have the bandwidth - I'd love to get your perspective on the article and discuss ways we can improve it. RealPharmer3 ( talk) 20:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Have you read the newspaper articles? the sources of the articles? it's irrelevant do you say or they say? Are more 400 billion dollars of irrelevant losses? Caused by FTX Bankruptcy! are they irrelevant? -- Peter39c ( talk) 00:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Two banks in bankrupt in 2 days and it's not over!! and this is not irrelevant!!
Instead of posting on the user talk page of a user that you want to report, you should just report to an administrator's noticeboard, WP:ANI. 331dot ( talk) 08:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
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. 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!
Wracking talk! 02:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@ The Anome: I got you from RAA list. Could you have a look at what is going on here. A number of editors want to update to Talk:Avicii#Consensus_on_"committed_suicide" to follow apparent WP:SUICIDE policy but from my view this TylerBurden ( talk · contribs) is WP:EW to keep the content in the article. Wracking ( talk · contribs) put the issue to DR but apparently it got shut down there. I didnt feel like running an RFC for this likely snow close (seems uncontroversial) and while it appears to me to be TE, I am not sure it meets the threshold for ANI as I dont think there is a 24 hour 3RR. Seems to me more of a user behavioral issue where the editor refuses to follow policy, as I would think policy would trump article level local consensus. The SUICIDE content update is not an issue I feel strongly on, but other editors seem to be facing a WP:OWN issue here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about the outcome of that close that I requested. Perhaps a more specific RfC would work better, but I think you went about it the right way. Unfortunately, an inexperienced person editor closed it very poorly. The final outcome probably wouldn't have changed, but a more experienced closer would have navigated a path forward much better. Nemov ( talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey there wiki-buddy! I'm hoping I can attract some interested folks to consider reviewing the Wikipedia page about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis for Good Article status. As you may know, ALS is a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease that quickly causes people to lose the ability to move, speak, and breathe. The Wikipedia page about ALS is read over 2,000 times each day in English alone, and often experiences spikes in traffic whenever a celebrity is diagnosed. There have recently been a number of genetic advances made in the space and some recent drug approvals, thanks in part to the momentum started by the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. I've been grinding away at it since early this year but keen to see it improve further, hope you'll consider! PaulWicks ( talk) 13:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Hi, I made this at Julian Assange. The text heading I feel is undue as the sexual abuse allegations were eventually dropped. Normally on other articles we either downplay or remove entirely dropped allegations. This article is controversial and subject of DS. My text change was reverted. I started a talk page discussion Talk:Julian_Assange#undue_text_in_heading. Due to the DS I would think that I do not have the right to change it again, am I right? Would I now need to put it to DR or do an RFC? Wondering how challenged content is dealt with on these DS and GS articles. Note in this same sub-section. Just seemed excessive we have to do DR or RFC for every policy challenge. Also wanted to get an opinion before I went too astray as I did get a ban on another BLP for making edits I thought were supported by policy (I often try to tone down negativity on BLPs of articles that some consider to be about undesirable subjects). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Per WP:APPNOTE I am notifying all the editors (except a couple of ipv6 IP addresses that I assumed wouldn't get the notification) of this Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#18 since you have participated in recent discussions of the same subject. I did this notification my talk page so as not to clutter the RFC. Please comment over at the RFC. @ ArmorredKnight: @ Katakana546: @ Actualjc: @ Shibbolethink: @ Crossroads: @ Michael7604: @ MarkHaversham: @ 49.177.188.175: @ SCPdude629: @ Bakkster Man: @ Eruditess:
Thanks and happy editing! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm KB from Binance. I recently took over for User:RBinance, and I saw you'd been helping them out. I wanted to make sure you'd seen my response to your question about Singapore on the Talk page. Any feedback you have is welcome. Appreciate your help! KB at Binance ( talk) 18:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@ GreenC: I do think it would be useful to create an essay on the use of pejoratives, or at least consider it. It seems more and more common these days. For example I have seen JP Sears called a conspiracy theorist (a common one), Changpeng Zhao was recently referred to as a money launderer, and of course the SBF discussion. It seems there should indeed be some discussion on when to apply these sorts of labels. They are inherently pejorative and one framework to use as a test is if the person previously had a wikipedia page prior to their crime (or simply allegation in the case of a person like JP Sears), as that would at least let us know if the person was notable prior to the actions that are deemed by some as worthy of a label. In general, I dont like the use of the labels, but it seems that other editors really do like them. It seems to one mechanism to more or less vandalize a page of a person whose views the editor disagrees with. As for an essay, I have never written one (a wikipedia essay that is) so I would not know where to start. We also have wikipedia pages like Bernard Ebbers where hte subject is treated quite neutrally (I admire this) and a more advanced type of pejorative in Jeffrey Skilling. My ideal would be something like this:
Just some thoughts. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
essay}}
at the top and that is all.
WP:ESSAY has more info. Perhaps relevant essays already exist?
Wikipedia:Essay_directory. I look forward to reading and contributing to anything you wish to start. --
Green
C 04:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
What?? No one was discussing sentence duration or any changes to the lead at all in that section. VQuakr ( talk) 16:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there,
I wanted to say, thank you for your comments and edits on the Lex Fridman page. I've been dealing with that page for some months and I've finally withdrawn from it. Certain editors drown me in bureaucracy in order to refute my attempts to balance the article.
I'm new to Wikipedia, and i entered into editing that article without knowing the rules for BLPs. I'm sorry for my initial mistakes. I continued engaging with the page because i still saw it as not representing NPOV. My engagement with the page has been a great learning experience over all, though frustrating.
I had to step away because the editors who're pushing the anti-NPOV content are adamant about that content's inclusion, despite my comments on the matter, and they continually misrepresent the issue I'm raising and make me end up looking like an antagonizer or Fridman sympathizer (which I'm not). I've been trying to add balance to the article. I made edit mistakes initially, but that was due to my lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and I've since learned that policy and have avoided making those mistakes again. However, my initial mistakes are held against me by the other editors and used to diminish my credibility, and dismiss my suggestions.
In my recent edit requests, I wasn't asking to remove the content but rather just to move it into a different section so that the article would read as balanced. Currently, there's a narrative being pushed that paints Fridman in a negative light, diminishes his accomplishments and distracts from the actual facts of his career/life.
There have been random editors, over the months I've been involved with the page, that have made Talk page comments about the imbalance and anti-NPOV content, but they have consistently been silenced with bureaucracy from the same editor/s that have been protecting and pushing the content from the Business Insider article.
All that aside, and despite your edits also being reverted, i appreciate you for stepping in with your comments and edits.
You healed me from a case of "bureaucracy-related gut twisting" (I've just found the label for it while writing this comment!)
I felt like leaving this website as an editor, but you gave me the feeling of being defended from a bully, and that untwisted my gut!
I'm grateful to you for helping heal the bad feelings that arose from my engagement in the BLPs section.
I love this website, and I'm going to continue trying to make positive edits to any article I come across.
Thank you for being an editor here: you've encouraged me to keep editing myself!
There's a Bantu phrase/word called Ubuntu, which I'm reminded of in this moment.
Anyways, thank you again @ Jtbobwaysf. I wish you the best! Uhhhum ( talk) 20:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello and Happy New Year! I thought you might be interested to know that I went ahead and submitted Draft:Richard Teng through Articles for Creation. Your feedback has been most helpful and any comments you have there would be welcome. I'm also curious if you have any thoughts on next steps I should take with my proposed edits for the Binance article? Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 15:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there! I left some answers to your questions in our BNB discussion. I think we're close to something that is much easier to read, and less jargon-y. Looking forward to your thoughts. Thanks, KB at Binance ( talk) 11:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)