This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

After copy-editing at Ellen G. White I noticed the same at Seventh-day Adventist Church‎ but didn't touch it; if you think "like the pest" is a proper description, is there a quote about this? In any case, if you decide to restore it at the White article too I won't object, it's just that the tone seemed strange to me. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: Yup, I have avoided thus closely paraphrasing. It is just that she avoided the word Trinity. The source says that she did it tactfully. I won't object to a different wording. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I prefer the new wording, — Paleo Neonate – 02:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously calling my edits "less than neutral"? Dude, the entire Exodus article is biased. It's one of the most biased articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Again, there's absolutely no neutrality to speak of on that article. Every single argument in that article is pushing a single narrative, and is completely biased towards any viewpoints that support the Biblical narrative of the Exodus. What is going on? Jgriffy98 ( talk) 00:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:GOODBIAS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

( talk page gnome) @ Jgriffy98: And WP:FIXBIAS. But this discussion should pursue at the article's talk page. — Paleo Neonate – 02:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: is right. And the next time this sort of thing breaks out on my talk page, please, please make it move to the appropriate talk page. I woke up to 29 news messages! Doug Weller talk 05:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: Hey man. I haven't been operating multiple accounts, nor have I been participating in coordinated editing. I'm not quite sure how these accusations came about. There must be an error of some sort. What do you think may be causing this? -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 04:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Jgriffy98 and 64.184.10.234 are regarded as two different accounts. See WP:DUCK. The IP answered at your talk page as if he/she were you, and you did not object to it. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No. An IP address is not an account, and editing logged out is a different issue than multiple accounts, because it is often done negligently, as it was in this case. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while, so I never even noticed that other account. In fact, I've never heard of that account until today. I'll look into when I get the chance. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 06:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jgriffy98: Are you for real? The IP had replied above your reply to Mojoworker at [1]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: Yes, I'm for real. I recall posting those comments, but I don't remember the IP address. Could it be because I wasn't signed in when I signed the posts? I know for a fact that I was only using my own account. -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 06:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jgriffy98: You used both logged in and logged off for edit-warring. Technically you should have been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: What do you mean both? I only used one account. I know for a fact that I've only used one email on Wikipedia. Do you know the email address on this other account? As for your second comment, I haven't made any edits to that page for quite some time. I also have no intentions of edit-warring on that page ever again. -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 06:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jgriffy98: You have used two accounts. One is Jgriffy98, the other one is 64.184.10.234. According to WP:RULES these are two accounts which you have used for violating WP:RULES. But blocks are meant to prevent harm, not to punish harm, so now it is unlikely that you would get blocked for what you have done on 16 an 17 May 2019. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: I understand. My apologies for the confusion. I guess I didn't know what I was doing while I was doing it. I wasn't intentionally trying to use two accounts. I certainly was not attempting to do any "coordinating editing". I assure you that the other account will not be used ever again. I'm not even sure which email that account could've been set up with. I only recall using my personal gmail account. -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 07:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jgriffy98: Technically, per WP:SOCK multiple accounts are allowed. What isn't allowed is using them to stack votes or for violating WP:RULES (such as evading WP:3RR). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: I understand. Evading WP:3RR certainly wasn't my intention. I must have been using this other account by accident. Is it possible to make multiple accounts with one email address? I'm still confused as to how this could've happened. -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 07:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jgriffy98: In order to avoid trouble, multiple accounts should be disclosed. But using multiple accounts will only block you if you use them against WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

( talk page gnome)( edit conflict) @ Jgriffy98: if you forget to login before editing, this will happen. Your account name is visible at the top; if you always check that before editing (and if you've been away, refresh the page first), this can be avoided in the future. — Paleo Neonate – 07:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: Finally, a direct answer to one of my questions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu couldn't seem to give me one straight answer for anything I asked him. I don't want to sound rude, but it was it was starting to irritate me. Now, I hope this matter is finally resolved. -- Jgriffy98 ( talk) 07:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu - It appears that you were confusing User:Jgriffy98 by lecturing them about using two accounts, and, although you correctly cited Wikipedia policy, you were incorrect, because an IP address is not an account. The guidelines about editing logged out discourage editing logged out, and state that it may not be done for block evasion or for any improper purpose such as edit-warring, but it is not the same as using multiple accounts, and is only sockpuppetry if it is done for block evasion or other inappropriate purposes. Please do not warn other editors incorrectly. It appears that you were warning them and failing to explain the offense. I don't like the guideline Do not bite the newbites, because it is more often misused than used correctly, but you were biting the newbie without explaining what their mistake was. By the way, thank you, User:PaleoNeonate, for explaining. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: While you're technically right, my two cents were that the account was created to dodge WP:3RR. I just cannot prove that it was done purposefully so, i.e. that the editor knew about 3RR. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No. One does not create an IP account. You are likely right that they were editing logged out to evade 3RR, and they may even have been pretending not to know anything. However, an IP address is not an account. Please be a little more precise in your admonitions of disruptive editors. They are likely to be able to wikilawyer also. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: Yup. What I meant was this: if I am not wrong, edit-warring started from the IP, then the account got created and the edit-warring continued from the account. So, initially, he/she could not log in, since there was no account of him/her. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: When I first began editing, I had little to no understanding of Wikipedia policy guidelines. You’re misinterpreting my early editing mistakes as “coordinated editing” and falsely claimed that I was using two accounts. Other editors have already warned me about my prior edit warring, so I don’t see how that’s relevant to this discussion. I admit that I was edit warring early on, but that behavior has ceased. I now have a fuller understanding of Wikipedia policy, and have no intention of violating it in the future. I already told you that I was a rookie. Give me a break, dude. User:Robert McClenon Thank you for your input. I appreciate you stepping in and clarifying things. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 17:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: If you're just hassling me because you're still mad about our previous discussion, I've already apologized to you for that. To be fair, we were both using ad hominem attacks, but I apologized for what was said on my end. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 18:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Jgriffy98: Obey WP:RULES, that's all I'm asking. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Tgeorgescu: I already said that I would, repeatedly. You're original charge against me that I was engaging in "coordinated editing" is false. I hope that you will obey WP:RULES as well. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 18:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Jgriffy98 - One of the most basic rules in Wikipedia is 3RR. The basic problem is that you were edit-warring. Regardless of whether you knew about editing logged out, you either did know about 3RR or should have known about it. I don't like the rule about going easy on new editors, because it is abused at least as often as it is used fairly. You may have used it to get away with edit-warring. Consider yourself to be a more experienced editor now, and do not edit-war, and do not edit logged out. (By the way, you should be able to tell when you are logged in and logged out. The screen looks different.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I won't. Thank you, Robert. Jgriffy98 ( talk) 02:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As intimated, saying there is a difference between the rights of autistic people and the rights of people who leech upon autistic people is totally out of line, and is gravedancing. Please make sure you leave that user alone and please do not engage in this type of innuendo in the future. There is simply no sense in that. El_C 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@ El C: Understood. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That apology reads as a non-apology apology, that merely repeated the accusation with the clause "if". Direct question: Do you see how it can be read that way? cygnis insignis 20:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Cygnis insignis: I am not a native speaker, so sometimes what I write could be ambiguous. Sometimes I speak too abstractly (in this case about what facilitators of communication do) and people take it personally (I did not mean Anomalapropos, I meant facilitators of communication). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to present an impartial view as an editor, not enter combative win or lose debates, and think that is a more productive approach for myself. This was how the site used to be, mostly friendly and solution seeking, and that is how content is still improved. Excuse my English where it is too oddly phrased. cygnis insignis 20:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you gave a final warning for vandalism to Sfbmod in what appears to be a content dispute. Was there vandalism, or was this inappropriate addition of good-faith content? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon: I considered that adding described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists in Wikipedia's voice is a mockery of all we stand for. So, yes, I assumed the editor was trolling. Ascribe a statement so utterly inane to Einstein is character assassination. Then the editor went into a wild tangent about John 1:1. WP:AGF does not require us to allow other editors to insert inane rants into Wikipedia articles. He/she should be indeffed according to WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE. If he/she seeks to push the POV that Einstein and Spinoza were Christians he/she should seek another venue. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu - Okay. I agree that the inserted material needed to be removed, and stated a bizarre point of view. What I disagree with is labeling it as vandalism, because it appears to have been meant in good faith. The editor is not a vandal, but that doe snot mean that the addition was acceptable. You were right on the article content, just wrong as to what warning to give the editor. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where the John 1 reference is (and I don't see a 1 John 1 reference either) but the Johannine books are mystical, and are often misinterpreted or interpreted strangely. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that the editor is a vandal or a troll, but I agree that the edits were inappropriate. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that they now posted on an old Apollo thread... — Paleo Neonate – 14:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon and PaleoNeonate: Yup, it was posted in good faith, but only the first time. After he/she was told the problem, persisting in error becomes the real problem. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

( edit conflict)BTW, I had the impression that your comment to me was a bit defensive, but I was not claiming any such RS to exist. As for a previous comment in relation to removal of the Spinoza paragraph, I later understood why it was removed. I think you're right, but may perhaps be overreacting (just a reminder not to let trolls win, you're precious here). — Paleo Neonate – 14:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: I did not say that you have claimed that. The WP:ANI thread was about the troublemaker. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know Apollo's habits well enough to determine if it could be a sleeper sock (and SPI warranted)? I know there was prolific socking but never studied that LTA case yet... — Paleo Neonate – 14:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: AFAIK he was an atheist. So unless he had a born-again experience, it does not sound like him. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu, User:PaleoNeonate - I will close the DRN thread because the matter is now at ANI, which is a better place for it. (If the editor is a sock of any of various sockmasters, one of the admins there may take action.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon and PaleoNeonate: Checked his user page, Apollo is a naturalistic pantheist. That's the same belief in God as I have. This is why I don't count as an atheist and neither does he. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, also one of my tendencies (at least in relation my past/occasional personal spiritual/mystical experiences, and emotions I have when playing Indian ragas, etc) while at the same time acknowledging that it's neurological processes and understanding the origins of religiosity... — Paleo Neonate – 15:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@ PaleoNeonate: I have experienced satori for several minutes. But that experience does not contradict my beliefs. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate/Userboxes/Einstein — Paleo Neonate – 18:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just an update: IRT Apollo, now that I did study the case for my own edification, indeed very unlikely... — Paleo Neonate – 02:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)