Oldstone James

March 2015

Hello, I'm Qed237. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Template:2014–15 Premier League table because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See this diff QED237 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

re: PL results by round

Hi,

First of all I will answer your question. There is no reason for an article for results by round and I can not imagine it would pass WP:GNG (general noatbility guidelines). Other things than the consensus would probably have such article deleted.

The issue here is that there are no clear rounds in England. Matches gets moved around all the time due to League Cup, FA Cup and a history of postponed matches because of snow and other issues. As there are no rounds often teams have not played same amount of matches and sometimes the difference is 3-4 matches or more. That is why MATCHDAY is used instead of rounds.

Matchday is "the position at the end of the day the team played". So if a team plays on saturday, we use the position at saturday evening on the team individual article, if they play sunday we use position after sunday.

Also the Statto source we found lists all positions for the teams based on matchday. The source you tried adding are WP:OR (original research), because you have to look for yourself and change the date manually to see position after every match. No reason for that when we already have a source for matchday.

I think I got it all, if you have more questions feel free to ask. QED237 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, again. I understand your interest in helping but perhaps next time you could ask before making big edits and create things? You have been editing "high level" articles with many readers and editors and if something is not on the article there is probably a very good reason. You can always ask on article talkpage for example "why are there no bracket?" and you could have gotten an answer and not have your work being removed, as I know you have probably put some work and time in to it. In the case of bracket it tells reader we know who will meet in the future, but we dont know that, so it can not be added until last draw has been made, which is why it is hidden in a comment. QED237 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• OK Then. Oldstone James (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket

Template:2014–15 UEFA Champions League knockout phase bracket has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QED237 (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Championship Table on Queen of the South's season page 2014-15

This is only showing from Hibernian in 2nd place to Raith in 6th place since your edit? Could you post up the full league table please? Rusty1111 : Talk 14:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• That is the way a team's performance is presented on Wikipedia articles. E.g. look here or here. Oldstone James (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Chelsea report

Yes, I will write a report for the Chelsea game, I'll do it shortly. Andre666 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC) ^Ol^Ja 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Premier League table.

Hopefully, it'll be easier to explain in the footnotes after the FA Cup final; what I wanted to summarise was Arsenal get the cup-winner's spot regardless of the result, but to actually describe what's going on would need the two cases (Arsenal wins and gets the CW spot by right, Man Utd gets the league spot as Arsenal finished fifth, Everton gets the EFL spot as Man Utd finished sixth; or Chelsea wins, Arsenal gets the CW spot by finishing fifth, and so on). It's subtle but we do need to be accurate! Sceptre (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Agreed 100% - that's why even what appears to be a simple explanation looks like an over-complicated mess. Maybe, we should literally just have "Man Utd qualify for CL by winning EL, Everton have passed-down EFL Cup spot from Man Utd, and FA Cup spot is vacated" before the FA Cup takes place? ^Ol^Ja 23:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: I think the version I've done subsequent tonight's result should be fine, as long as Qed237 stops reintroducing the incorrect information. Sceptre (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I believe it is perfect right now; if Qed237 edits something you believe is inaccurate, just say that on his talk page - you should be able to come to an agreement quite easily. ^Ol^Ja 15:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please only use exact quotes & don't needlessly use <nowiki></nowiki>

You wrote "'Impossible Drive' is used specifically as a term in many articles, so it is worth stating explicitly it is known as such". That exact quote does not appear in the sources. Please use only exact quotes, or paraphrase. "No reason provided for removing sourced content)" perhaps refers to my partial summary edit "Copyedit (minor) to reflect sources"; I was indicating that "quoted phrase does not appear in articles, therefore you cannot quote".

Also, please be careful not to include extraneous <nowiki></nowiki> tags.

Peaceray (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peaceray: As to <nowiki></nowiki> tags, I just didn't know how else to not make the apostrophe bold. As to the term 'Impossible Drive', all of the sources I have referenced explicitly call the EmDrive the 'Impossible Drive', 'Impossible Space Engine', and other equivalents. And, yes, that is the 'exact quote'. I don't really see what your problem is with the sources.^Ol^Ja 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

"Impossible Drive" as a phrase by itself does not exist in any of the sources except for the YouTube, which would be considered at best a blog source & thus not authoritative. I went to each of the other sources, searched on Impossible Drive, & found nothing. Yes, there are iterations involving the words impossible & drive. No, you did not provide an exact quote from any the four text articles. You must either provide an exact quote or paraphrase.

IMHO, I think that my copyedit accurately reflects what you were trying to convey, although I did move it to the end of the paragraph to reduce undo influence. Replicated empirical results should trump theoretical criticism until someone proves the methodology unsound. I am not saying don't mention the criticism, just don't give it undue weight by putting it in the introductory sentence.

Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peaceray:

1) How are "Impossible Propulsion Drive", "Impossible Space Engine", and "Impossible Rocket Engine" not, at least, paraphrases of 'Impossible Drive'? And "Impossible Drive" as a phrase by itself does not exist in any of the sources except for the YouTube" - that is not true. Popular Mechanics called it, as mentioned, an 'Impossible propulsion drive'. Isn't two exact iterations many paraphrases enough?

2)"IMHO, I think that my copyedit accurately reflects what you were trying to convey". In fact, your copyedit was the opposite of what I was trying to convey. My edit was meant to reflect what the drive had been frequently dubbed as by the media, so that other users searching for 'Impossible Drive' could find what they are looking for. For example, I had recently forgot the name of the EmDrive and had to search for 'Impossible Drive' and wasn't sure I was on the right page. My edit had nothing to do with criticism of the engine (although I do myself find it ridiculous) but instead reflected a media trend.^Ol^Ja 19:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Impossible drive or impossible engine would be a paraphrase of "Impossible Propulsion Drive", "Impossible Space Engine", and "Impossible Rocket Engine". Anything in quotes, i.e., "impossible drive" is interpreted as an exact quote & is thus not a paraphrase.

Frequency does not equal consensus. The fact that NASA has certified results means either the theory is wrong, the methodology is flawed, or there is an unexplained / undetected effect that we do not discern yet. I think that it is safe to say that most will accept the authority of NASA even though we cannot explain why the phenomena occurs. Hence, placing a minority opinion in the introductory sentence would be giving it undue weight, & you can expect that some, if not myself, would re/move it. I think my phrasing is accurate. There are skeptics & they have called it impossible.

Remember that it took millennia to extract acetylsalicylic acid from willow trees & to understand how it worked, & that even Einstein rejected the cosmological constant. Trust, but verify.

Peaceray (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peaceray: As I said, the name is not meant to assert that the theory behind the drive is wrong or hold any opinion about it, but is instead the reflection of what the media call it. I think the fact that LITERALLY every single media source calls the drive 'Impossible Drive' or equivalent is way too notable not to mention it on Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is a secondary source driven by what primary sources say - no matter how controversial or untrue (WP:RS). It doesn't matter whether consensus is not reached upon the validity of the theory - the RS call it 'the Impossible Drive', and that's what it shall be. What part of what I say is incorrect? The opinion that the EmDrive is impossible is controversial, but the fact that it is often dubbed 'the Impossible Drive' is undeniably true. If you are so stubborn and dismissive of keeping the term in bold and want to be pedantic, we can settle on "it is often dubbed 'the Impossible Drive' or equivalent" or list all the names mentioned in the sources. Also, here some more sources using the exact phrase 'impossible drive': DailyMail, Extreme Tech, Jalopnik, Wired. By this point, I think we should call it 'impossible space drive', if you so insist on using exact quotes.^Ol^Ja 20:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You're losing me when you write "that LITERALLY every single media source calls the drive 'Impossible Drive'" because I can go right to the article & find sources that do not have the word impossible in them.

BLUF about the Daily Mail: don't use it. See WP:DAILYMAIL for more info.

I think that paraphrasing is appropriate, but it you want to cite the quote only with sources from which the quote came, so be it. Remove citations that do not use the exact quote. Or paraphrase & use the best sources of the lot. Don't include it in the opening sentence.

Your arguments about keeping it in bold do not convince me & I think putting in bold would render it as WP:PEACOCK. If it is that important to you, discuss at Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster.

I strive for an encyclopedic tone, not sensationalism. I think "impossible drive" will be ephemeral, & that we well eventually get to "Although initial empirical results indicated ..." or "Although initially thought to be impossible, further examination of repeated successful results let to further investigations that revealed ...".

I am done discussing this here. Any further discussion should involve the community, as neither of our opinions may represent consensus. Therefore, if you have more that you need to discuss about this, then I invite you to create a new section at Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster.

Peaceray (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peaceray: OK, as you wish, end of discussion, moving to talk page. Let me just have my final say here, as you don't seem to understand me at all: "I think "impossible drive" will be ephemeral, & that we well eventually get to "Although initial empirical results indicated ..."..." is definitely not a valid thing to say, as even if the drive is rendered indeed possible, the media nickname 'impossible drive' will very likely remain. For a hundredth time, the name does not in any way imply anything about the validity of the theory, and is just a nickname the media uses - just like 'a software bug'; when we say there is a bug in the program, we aren't implying that there is a actually a physical bug crawling inside the computer, do we? It's the same here. For that same reason, it should have nothing to do with WP:PEACOCK or any other NPOV policy. Your arguments about the Daily Mail are irrelevant, because 1) it is one of only many sources I listed and 2) I am not using it as a source of factual information - but rather as evidence that the media (such as the Daily Mail) tend to refer to the drive as 'impossible drive'.

I will follow your advice and cite only the sources from which the exact phrase originated and maybe introduce the term later on in the article. I will also start a discussion on the talk page.^Ol^Ja 23:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Cogito

Neither Descartes’s original French nor Veitch’s translation use the punctuation you inserted. We should revert. Humanengr (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

OK then. It's just wrong grammatically. But if it's a historical mistake, go for it.^Ol^Ja 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thx, will do. FWIW, a Google search for “fewer commas” shows that is the trend. One humorous cmt from that search: “As a fellow over-inserter of commas, I sympathize! If I pause, I insert, well, you know. A comma! 🙂” (And I’m a recovering commaholic.) Humanengr (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Oh, no! It started off so well... The comma, unfortunately, is not a representation of a pause in speech - and you can't like to insert it or hate to insert it: in most cases, if it should be there, you should put it, and if it shouldn't, you shouldn't put it. In this particular example, there was only one grammatically correct option: the one I used; all other ways of punctuation it would be wrong. But it's good to know that you have respect for commas! Because a lot of people seem to just audaciously ignore them, and their sentences become impossible to read :)^Ol^Ja 21:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jason Lisle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Lisle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Lisle (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cosmogony again

I also withdraw my "friendly warning" (well, not fully - you can keep the "friendly" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Haha, good one ;) ^Ol^Ja 00:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oldstone James. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Oldstone James. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Multiverse (religion)

Hi,

Since we have been editing each others changes in the article on "Multiverse (religion)" back and forth, I've come to your talk page to understand your position a little better and to try to work things out. Yes, it is true that I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor, and yes, it is also true that English is not my first language. But from what I understand from your talk page, those are not the only things that are going on. I read about edit wars, personal attacks on people and even warnings that your acts can lead to edit blocking or a topic ban on all topics related to religion! Have no fear; I don't want to report you at all. I simply want to understand you and save each other a lot of time and energy.

Perhaps, as a beginner (and a non native English speaker) I was to enthusiastic making radical changes to an article that already existed, and it is good that you corrected me and made me aware of all the policies of Wikipedia. Also your advice to begin with small changes is a very good one. But what I don't understand is that you even edited the changes that I made in response to your comments.

To keep it very practical: I want to change the introduction text to the article mentioned above, since it is now incorrect, because of our editing back and forth. Especially the line "These religious cosmologies have aided (...) spiritual development or healing." (coming from me) has no relation to the rest of the text anymore. I suggest you let me correct my own line and the other text parts coming from my hand, making them correspond with your text parts and also with your comments. Then I will leave this article as it is and make no further changes to it or to any other Wikipedia-article whatsoever, now or in the future, for I want to spent my time and energy positively and not negatively (if that is correct English grammar or good enough for you to understand ;) --S.w.goedhart (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@S.w.goedhart: Hello there again. I must first specify that instead of constantly reverting your edits, I tried to keep the best parts and remove the bad parts. If you look at the state of the article now, the majority of what you have written is still; however, some unsourced material, occasional poor grammar, and the decision to delete almost the entire article altogether without coming to an agreement on the talk page first have been removed/reverted. I did not try to undermine your contributions in any way - I just wanted to improve them. If you feel I have done so, go ahead and add back whatever you feel I have unrightfully retracted.

As for my history, yes, in the past, I was naive and did launch personal attacks and edit-wars. However, the last such occasion was, I believe, four years ago, and since then I have learnt that Wikipedia works differently than I thought it did, and now almost all of my edits are either kept or reverted for reasons that I agree with. Talking about the proposed topic ban and the edit war warnings on religion-related topics, this was done by a collection of questionable users, some of whom have been banned indefinitely, and I don't take these warnings too seriously.

Finally, about the intro: I reverted your last edit on the basis that it didn't seem to add any new information or otherwise change the content but instead added unencyclopedic language (such as "all kinds of" - WP:WEASEL) and removed a non-duplicate link (realm of the dead). I have then revisited the revert and added the parts of your original edit that I considered useful. Of course, as I said, if you think I am wrong, go ahead and add in what I may have missed when reverting your edit.

Before I finish my reply, please don't let this encounter represent what your experience on Wikipedia will be like, and even more so don't quit Wikipedia altogether just because of this encounter. Of course, the more editors - the better, so losing a potential Wikipedian for a silly reason is always a bad sight. Furthermore, you have been adding what I suppose may be valuable content (although my poor knowledge of the matter doesn't let me conclude on that definitively), so I would advise you to continue editing this very article. To reiterate, I have not been removing or modifying some content that you have added because I want to be negative - it's just that some of it happened not to comply with Wikipedia policies. Such removals have happened to every new editor on Wikipedia, and removals like these will happen less and less the more you edit and/or understand these policies. Hopefully, I have convinced you to carry on editing, and I look forward to seeing your work! ^Ol^Ja 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James:Thanx for your positive answer. Honestly, my goal is not to dig in your past or to hold your past against you in any way. I was just trying to understand you and to work things out. My act of deleting the entire article was a beginner's fault, I admit. I tried to reorganize the content, making it more subject-matter oriented and less of a random list of religions. In fact, I saved before I deleted and I was going to use the original content later, but it probably wasn't the best way to go forward and it was good of you to intervene. Like I said; a beginner's fault, but at least I did use the talk page first ;)

About the sources; I have many good academic sources but not all of them are in English, so I'm still looking for good alternatives. Religions (including Religious cosmologies) have been studied by scholars extensively for centuries. In recent years this study has seen an important widening with the arise of esotericism, which allows scholars to understand religious texts even better. I tried to use this new information to reorganize the content of the article, as I said, making it more subject-matter oriented. I don't think that qualifies as "original research", because I did not use any primary sources or anything. I was just reorganizing on the basis of new academic insights. But I don't have a book on religious multiverses either, so, I admit, it may be a borderline case.

I will see how far I will go with this article or with Wikipedia in general. It depends on the time and energy that I have, and also on the reactions that I'm getting. I don't want to end up in editing wars with questionable users, like you did in the past. Just the start of such a war would mean exit for me. So, we'll see. For the moment I will stick to small changes, like you advised me. --S.w.goedhart (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@S.w.goedhart: I am happy that you recognised your mistake; this already means that you are learning. As for the sources, the fact that they are in a foreign language does not matter. A foreign resource is better than no resource. What I meant by original research is that a number of key statements did not have any references at all to back them up. Previously, your entire paragraphs were constructed around these statements, which made the entire sections dubious. You have since both added references and removed some unsourced content. However, some such unsourced content still exists, such as the statement "The animistic traditions of indigenous peoples are the oldest known forms of religion that still exist". I have tried to find a similar statement of animism's main page but failed.

Yes, perhaps you are not as stubborn as I am, which is definitely a good thing, as it sure as hell does help with your two priorities (time and energy) ;) I am glad that you are not leaving Wikipedia for good, and I truly believe you won't have a bad time editing! ^Ol^Ja 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Thanx for all your help, brother. I think I'll leave it at that.--S.w.goedhart (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@S.w.goedhart: Alright, it's your decision. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Feel free to come back if you spot any errors or want to add new content to other pages you come across in the future!^Ol^Ja 21:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: deleted.

@Oldstone James: Sorry about the previous message. I was a little disappointed with the changes that you made. But I guess you know wikipedia policies better than I do, and they probably have a function. I'm still learning, everyday, with everything. Hopefully no hard feelings from you (for long). You're still my brother and I do thank you for all your help, improving the article together. Best of luck --S.w.goedhart (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@S.w.goedhart: Hello. I am very grateful for your apology; however, I still have some issues that I'd like to clear up.

Even though you have now deleted your previous comments, it is still clear that you think that I made the changes that I did because I was irrational and biased. However, that's not true: I made them because I'm a human being, who has furthermore admitted to not be very knowledgeable on the subject, and human beings, especially those who are not experts on the subject, are bound to make mistakes. What you must then do is be bold correct these mistakes, citing reliable sources and adding an explanotary note, which will make me understand what I did wrong. In that case, I will either agree with you, or, if I don't, I will start a discussion. What you must NOT do is abandon Wikipedia entirely on the basis that you are not bothered to edit-war: 1) if I make a fallacious edit, that does not mean that I am starting an edit-war with you and 2) I am not at all representative of the Wikipedia community. Even if you don't like collaborating with me, there are still thousands upon thousands of other articles that you can also edit.

On a related note, if I revert your edit, that does NOT mean that I made it on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines. If I do cite some guidelines, what you must do is read them and take in the learnt information, or, alternatively, cite them back at me if you think I am misusing them.

Luckily, I see that you have done exactly that and proceeded to make the corrections, which I think were, for the most part, a useful contribution, though I did make some further corrections.

Hopefully, you have gotten my message, and I hope to see you editing in the future :)^Ol^Ja 21:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Oldstone James: Sorry if I wasted too much of your time and energy as a beginner. I didn't understand what your problem was with the text, and I had so many sources that it would be of topic to name them all. Therefore I started a new article, but that wasn't good for you either. As I understand it, you can live with the current text, and our little edit "struggle" is over? Then, I wish you all the best with your wikipedia, because it isn't my thing at all, as you might have noticed. Once again: good luck!--S.w.goedhart (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@S.w.goedhart: No, that's fine! Every new editor will waste someone's time. Also, what "struggle"? I thought it was a good collaborative effort between you and me, and together we have managed to improve the article by correcting each other's mistakes. Either way, thanks a lot for your contribution and the wishes, and don't hesitate to come back if that ever crosses your mind!^Ol^Ja 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Big Bang

You changed content at Big Bang from "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy, time, and space, and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as currently understood laws of physics and does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe." which made no sense, you then changed it to "Current conception of the Big Bang model assumes the existence of energy as well as the existence of currently understood laws of physics about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe" which also makes no sense. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Can you please explain why it doesn't make sense? What part confuses you? And how could it be phrased to make sense to you?^Ol^Ja 17:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You have missed out "and does not comment" though I'm still not sure that this is what the source says. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh shoot. And yes, you're right once again, the source doesn't say that, and what I meant is not at all what I wrote. I should instead have written "as well as the existence of Pre–Big Bang physics. Let me know if you agree with this formulation.^Ol^Ja 17:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are becoming tendentious, "assumes the existence of energy and does not comment about their origin" to what is "their" referring to now? Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: No, my edits are not tendentious at all, they are just me trying to correct a simple grammar mistake again and again, but obviously failing due to my terrible attentiveness. You, on the other hand, are reverting my edits simply because they have a very simple and correctable grammar mistake, getting angry in the process, and then calling my edits tendentious. I agree that my edits have so far all had an issue, but that doesn't mean that they should be reverted. They should be corrected.^Ol^Ja 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You should NOT expect others to clean up your mess, I have little idea what you are trying to achieve so cannot correct it. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: It's always better to avoid conflict, and it's also better (for both you and me, and also for your own time) to fix a minor grammar mistake than to revert the edit altogether and start an edit-war because of it (WP:HANDLE). You know exactly what I meant, which was to simply remove 'time and space' from the list, as that was not sourced. Are you okay with me doing that again, but changing 'their' to 'its'? Are you additionally okay with including Pre-big bang physics?^Ol^Ja 19:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you try and engage others on the talk page at Big Bang and gain consensus for your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: It's not a big deal, and it's unlikely anyone other than you and me will engage in that discussion; it's just a matter of a simple grammatical mistake. Are YOU okay with me removing 'time and space' from the list and changing 'their' to 'its', or are you not? Additionally, are YOU okay with adding the existence of pre-Big Bang physics to the list?^Ol^Ja 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the source [1] it actually states "The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed" I'm not sure why you think it doesn't say that? Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: For some reason, I cntrl-f-ed 'space, time' and also 'space and time' and didn't find anything. Not sure why that happened; perhaps the order was wrong. My problem with that is that the Big Bang theory still assumes that time and space didn't exist before at t=0, which may confuse some readers. I don't really know what to do about that. Maybe say 'assumes the existence of time, space, and energy at/during the Big Bang'?^Ol^Ja 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

[Self revert]

[Self revert]

This is a much better approach from you, for which I am very, very grateful. If you read my unblock reason, you will see that I was actually proposing to block another editor, jps, who in my opinion thoroughly deserves at least a warning of being blocked for edit-warring without consensus - not so much expecting to get unblocked myself. If anything, this block might serve me as somewhat of a relief, as in this past week my frustration levels have skyrocketed to a degree that I've probably never experienced before in my life, and thus kept me on Wikipedia nearly 24/7 despite me having other things to worry about. Now I know that even if I want to do anything, I can't, which may help me get over it.

Again, I know exactly where I've gone 'wrong' as in why I got blocked, but, honestly speaking, I still don't understand where I've gone 'wrong' with my proposals, and no editor has yet pointed it out to me, including yourself. The only objection to my main proposal seems to be that it's not an improvement over the status quo, but that's not really helpful, and shouldn't even count as an argument per WP:DONTREVERT (well, at least in theory; in practice, I see that this rule doesn't apply, somehow). I am definitely, 100%, maybe even more than that, willing to listen to any possible improvement to my proposal or any way I can make my proposal more likely to be agreed upon. Once again, though, I haven't heard much advice on that at all, only being told not to bludgeon, an advice which I think I more or less followed - at least on AiG's talk page.

It's nice to hear that you regard me as intelligent :) Although 'likeable'? Really? Not sure how you got to that conclusion XD. I greatly appreciate your desire to help me become a great editor (I really do mean it), but if being a great editor requires, with all due respect, stating as a fact that an organisation that says that "biblical faith and reason go well together" and that "God encourages us to reason" actually means by that that "biblical faith and reason do not go well together" and that "God will eternally punish us for reasoning", and then using a combination of wikilawyering about WP:RSPRIMARY and some rather obvious WP:SYNTH to justify this statement, I think I'm fine being the editor that I am.

I think this last case was a nail in the coffin of my Wikipedia journey, after which either of two things will happen: 1) I will find a way to accept that that's just how Wikipedia works and maybe do some occasional wikignoming, correcting some grammar and perhaps adding a few sources here and there (although, as I have learnt, even that can be reverted on the grounds of POV pushing), but that will be it; or 2) my frustration will keep knocking on the door every time I happen to be on Wikipedia, in which case I will probably end up getting a few more blocks and eventually get blocked indefinitely, as you have described in choice [B]. So far, I am not sure which one it will be, but it definitely won't be choice [A], as I have already decided for myself that attempting to make any progress on Wikipedia if the 'great' editors don't like it is an exercise in futility.

Finally, before I go, let me ask you, or anyone reading this, for that matter, to 1) undo all my edits in the Answers in Genesis article, including the wording and punctuation corrections I made to the 'three central points' paragraph; the editors have made it utterly clear to me that they weren't seeking any help, controversial or uncontroversial, on my part, so no help it will be. Let the article be as they like it to be, and I will stay out of it; and 2) note my final proposed compromise on the 'God's Word vs human reason' matter: "they present this as the choice of one's personal ultimate authority for truth, with God's Word and human reason being the two possible options, and those choosing the latter over the former liable to perishment", which is, in my opinion, the closest representation of what the source is trying to convey. Now, what you do with this sentence, and whether you find this useful or even bother to read it, I don't care, but I just felt that I needed to put it out there. Happy editing and hope that you don't have to go to the trouble of encountering someone as persistent and pesky as me in the future :p^Ol^Ja 19:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

[Self revert]

I see, nevermind 1), then!^Ol^Ja 20:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Response to analysis on Talk:Answers in Genesis

@EdChem: [I am blocked and hence am forced to bring you to my talk page] First of all, thanks SO much for taking your time to analyse the situation and propose a number of helpful compromises.

Pseudoscientific promotion of young Earth creationism and dangling modifier

I must say that I am a huge fan of your 1H version, as it avoids both a dangling modifier and a meaningless statement (that results that don't conform to their view are rejected, which is true for every possible view by definition ([2]). The only thing I would want to add to your version is a basis for their rejection of scientific investigation, which is biblical inerrancy, and remove intelligent design from the statement, as AiG are known to be opponents of the idea. Perhaps something like this? It advocates a literal or historical-grammatical interpretation of the Book of Genesis with a young Earth, promoting pseudoscientific explanations from a creationist perspective and, out of belief in biblical inerrancy, rejecting scientific investigations that contradict their version of the creation narrative.

References

Their beliefs reject natural causes and events in scientific explanations of nature

You asked the question of whether AiG reject all natural causes in favour of the supernatural when it comes to the origins of the universe. The answer seems to be that yes, they do. However, note that the statement also states that all general natural explanations of nature are also rejected. This is false: for example, AiG do believe in natural selection - just not in 'evolution'. Furthermore, as the helpful quote provided by Guy Macon shows us, AiG do, in fact, accept that most phenomena can be explained through laws of nature (as can be deduced from the sentence, "Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so"). My proposal would be either to just remove the word nature or simply add the word 'many'.

References

Views and activities

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you said that the debate about human reason/God's Word "that is not reflected in these before-and-after snippets". However, there is this diff which shows what the debate was about. Essentially, I just removed the part that was not supported by the source, and is in fact directly contradicted by this statement made by AiG themselves: . I also very recently came up with a compromise, but even my own compromise seems to involve slight WP:SYNTH, so I am not sure whether it completely solves the issue. Either way, here it is: "they present this as the choice of one's personal ultimate authority for truth, with God's Word and human reason being the two possible options, and those choosing the latter over the former liable to perishment". However, as I said, in my opinion, it is better to just get rid of that statement completely just to be safe.

References

P.S.

I don't think I've done my appreciation of your post justice. Your post seems to address every single issue that you have found raised in the huge talk page discussion, and furthermore provide a solution for every one of those issues. Moreover, it identifies possible problems with the proposed solutions and attempts to address these as well. That's a hell of a good job you've done there - at least in my opinion. Once again, thank you very much for taking the time to write this brilliant post. That said, feel free to oppose everything I've said in this message, but I have a strong feeling we can make progress here.^Ol^Ja 01:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Thought you might find this useful

@1990'sguy: perhaps not all hope is lost, after all?^Ol^Ja 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I hope not. I will try to comment on the AiG talk page shortly -- I'm still busy at the moment, unfortunately, and don't have time to draft talk page comments. I'm sorry to see your block, I don't think it should have been made, at least for a whole week, but not very surprising -- here's the ANI discussion I told you about earlier so you know what I mean: [3] --1990'sguy (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's fine by me - if you don't have the time to edit on Wikipedia, don't - I just thought you'd want to look at my version before taking to AiG's talk page. About my block, I think I was unfortunate that I received the block LITERALLY hours/minutes before AiG's protection and EdChem's post, meaning I can't even contribute to the discussion which will eventually probably lead to some consensus, but other than that, technically, I have violated 4RR, so I can't really complain. Although I still think a week is a bit harsh - especially with the AiG page protection. Looking at the ANI, I can only be grateful that Jytdog was blocked indefinitely, as, in addition to you, they also tried to have another admin (!) blocked, and all of that with absolutely no justification. But there are still other editors and even admins like that (Doug Weller), so you always need to be careful.^Ol^Ja 10:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah...about that. As soon as the protection expired you (1990's guy) and Bloodofox immediately went back to editing the page instead of seeking consensus on the talk page, resulting in another week of protection. Gee, thanks!

And what, exactly, has your editing instead of seeking consensus on the talk page accomplished? Let's review, shall we?

The current, protected version of the page (18:44, 31 March 2019) is identical to the version as of 12:34 9 February 2019[4]. 74 article edits by 21 users (and 171 talk page edits by 20 users) over a period of 7 weeks have accomplished exactly zero.

And you (1990's guy), who were so eager to edit the page instead of discussing, have contributed zero to the discussion since the latest protection.

[Self revert]

I would rather not spend ~25 minutes drafting talk page comments (as I just did) when I could be writing the (so far, >43-page) research paper I'm working on right now. But, I did just take the time to comment. And yes, Guy Macon, you explicitly stated in your edit summary that other editors could re-add non-controversial edits that you removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James, I would have responded earlier but your ping didn't work. Thank you for your constructive and generous comments, I'm glad that you found them valuable. I have interests in pseudoscience areas and contribute to them from time-to-time, and when I saw the post at AN and the fights going on, I hoped that a contribution from an uninvolved editor might help. Taking this thread in order:

• You may have noticed that I have struck the mentions of ID already, someone else already pointed out that error of mine. Adding some mention of biblical inerrancy seems reasonable to me, though I'm not sure that 1H is finding great favour on the AiG talk page. There was so much debate about that single sentence, with efforts made to untangle / rearrange it, but none in the way that seemed to me to be the way to help it to flow. Hopefully consensus will form around something along these lines.
• As noted on the talk page, I misread the diff and was concerned at adding "many" as I think that implies something that isn't true because the sentence targets universal origins. Maybe some modification is needed elsewhere regarding the points you raise (though the description you note shows that AiG is misrepresenting or misunderstanding both natural selection and evolution – what a shock!) but I don't see it in the sentence I was considering. As a general proposition, trying to do twelve things at once to a highly watched / controversial WP article often has the same result as trying to juggle twelve active chainsaws – amazing if you succeed, but awfully messy if most of us try it.
• I realise that the human reason / God thing is in the history but I left it alone partly as I feel there is a bigger flaw underneath it. There is an unspoken assumption that God exists to the dichotomy, that AiG would take as axiomatic, but is problematic as a base for a scientific perspective. I'd need to look carefully at sources to really come up with something WP suitable there.
• Thanks, I'm glad you appreciate my thoroughness. I do try to be comprehensive, to look at what problems might arise and to anticipate approaches / seek compromises that do not raise new issues. I hope you are right that progress can be made, and your willingness to discuss, consider compromises and alternatives, and to build on suggestions of others are encouraging.
• Sadly, what I find less encouraging is some of what follows on after your responses to me. Accepting your block was justified is good, even if you are not happy with the length, and you recognise that the timing was unfortunate given the discussion that has happened since. Guy Macon's post could have been more helpful and blocked editors are known to vent. However, even if you are right, why debate history and rehash conflict when it's only going to make collaborative editing in a respectful environment more difficult? There are times when it is worth deciding to let someone else have the last word, even if you don't agree. There are times when it's better not to offer advice, even if you are right, when it isn't likely to be received in a positive way. A blocked editor talking about and reflecting on their own editing behaviour can be good... the same editor offering others advice on behaviour is more likely to be seen as provocative or clueless (or both). Your response to me is generous in its praise, shows clear gratitude, demonstrates reflection and a desire to collaborate, and creates an image of an editor who will contribute positively. I was surprised by it, and I want you to know that I appreciate what you have written. I ask that you reflect on how the bottom part of this thread colours the impression created by the first parts. We all make mistakes, use poor judgement, and invite consequences, like the events that now see you blocked... but if we also recognise those mistakes, and learn, and grow, then what we've done doesn't have to define how others see us or who we are. Please, be the productive Wikipedian that you've shown you can be. Thanks for reading, and I hope I am being helpful rather than patronising. I'm happy to chat further on the content issues. EdChem (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: (hopefully, the ping works this time around). Thanks for replying; for some reason, these pings are always hit and miss, and I can never quite figure out how they work, but that's about the most I can do while I am blocked :)

• I've just checked the talk page, and what I have found is that, so far, there are singular preferences for 1A (1990'sguy), 1B (dave souza, though, as they admit, a citation might be needed), and 1F (StAnselm), and three preferences for 1H (me, you, Guy Macon). 1F and 1H are really similar and are just a matter of clarity, so, based on what I have seen, the consensus seems to move in the 1H direction. Either way, I am happy with everything that is 1) clear 2) has no grammatical mistakes or ambiguities, such as a dangling modifier, 3) is factually accurate, and 4) contains a clear basis for rejection of science. I think my modified version of 1H ticks all 4 boxes, but any other version which does so too, I am happy with. Perhaps you or any other editor could bring my version of 1H to the talk page to see whether editors agree/are fine with it?
• If the sentence only targeted universal origins, adding "many" would be unnecessary and incomplete. However, it only concerns other aspects of nature, which is where the problem arises. I agree; AiG's view of what natural selection is doesn't really make much sense (if a mutation is defined as 'new' genetic information, how can natural selection through mutation not generate new genetic information?), but they still admit that natural selection is a natural cause, already falsifying the existing statement. Furthermore, as can be seen in a quote from Guy Macon's comment, AiG still believe that the majority of things have a natural explanation. Also, yes, trying to do a whole bunch of things at once and succeeding in all of them is very hard, but my approach was actually more like "if even one change goes through, that's already better than no change". Basically, I was starting to get desperate.
• Talking about reason/God, I personally don't see where the assumption that God exists is made, if that's what you mean. However, if you do, please point it out. Or do you mean that AiG make that assumption? In that case, I don't see a problem with implications that God exists when talking about AiG's views, as they, as you point out, take it as axiomatic.
• Yes, I agree with that, too. In fact, I have since removed my comment. My motivation for it was that Guy started baselessly attacking another editor who has done nothing wrong, and I felt that pointing out would defend the editor. However, I now realise it instead builds even more ground for conflict, which is definitely not going to help in achieving consensus on a compromise. You are not being patronising at all, and it is easy to tell an editor that is trying to give helpful advice apart from an editor who is using 'advices' as a tool for passive aggression (like me in my reply to Guy Macon :)). I will always listen to the former and treat them with respect, even if I don't agree with them. Once again, thanks for your reply and your contribution to AiG's talk page discussion, which looks increasingly likely to end up with a satisfactory consensus.^Ol^Ja 18:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James, thank you for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were made. Thank you also for removing your earlier comment, though I have a request. I don't like removing comments where there are already responses as it leaves a discussion that makes less sense to a reader. So, I suggest / ask that you restore the comment and then strike it out. By all means, you could add a comment like "struck to avoid conflict" (or whatever you think is suitable) to make clear that you are not saying that what you posted earlier is wrong, just that you would, on reflection, have preferred not to have posted it. It is your user talk page, so you are free to refactor as you choose, but I think complete removal is not the best idea. In the alternative, you could post a note with a diff to your removal saying that you have removed one of your own comments for whatever reason, but are noting where it was and that it was present when several following posts were made.

• Regarding pings, I don't understand why they sometimes don't work either, but I do have this page watchlisted now.  :)
• Regarding 1H and your modification, I can post a comment at AiG talk. Consensus is building, but trying to declare it quickly (especially by someone who is then in the majority) is an effective way to trigger further conflict / dispute, so I'd take it slowly.
• I have re-read the sentence and you are correct, it says "nature and universal origins" and I have been thinking only of the latter. However, I still see "many" as introducing inaccuracy on the subject of origins. So, I'll reflect further on what might be suitable there. I now see the problem you raise, I just want to find a solution that doesn't introduce a different problem.
• I understand your desire to try to fix lots of things at once, but my WP experience says that when there is push back, separate them into discrete and contained suggestions, even running in parallel. It may take longer but it tends to be more effective. Many of the issues that you have raised are valid areas for discussion and change, but how they are approached has a significant effect as to whether anything changes. I'm suggesting you try a modification of your methods, rather than your goals. A couple of examples:
  • Try DBRD: Having found an issue, start a discussion explaining why you see something as misleading or whatever, and wait a few days. If there's no response, boldly implement your change, pointing to your talk page post in the edit summary, and add a talk page note that you've implemented the change. Hopefully you're met with silence that you can take as acquiescence. If there is discussion, wait to see what emerges – there might be a better solution raised – and participate in the discussion. If theer's no discussion and you are reverted, you can ping the reverter to the thread you have already started and request discussion. No edit warring / conflict, no basis for accusing you of acting unilaterally, and an implicit comment that the reverter would have been wise to discuss rather than reverting.
  • Avoid discussion by edit summary: Look at the jps changes. He was right that "pseudoscientific promotion" is unclear and undesirable (as my talk page discussion showed). You were right that yEc is a religious belief and not a science. Neither of you was recognising / accepting the other person's point. Starting a talk page discussion to discuss a change rather than revert-warring will generally get the other editor to explain / discuss and lead to compromise or to other editors' involvement and the emergence of consensus.
• AiG certainly assume the existence of God, and attributing that assumption to them is fine. Writing in Wikipedia's voice, however, I am not comfortable that taking a God as a given is desirable or appropriate. As I said above, I skipped it as something to come back to, partly as I could see concrete suggestions in other areas that I thought would be productive in advancing the discussion of article content.
• I'm glad we share optimism about the potential for further improvement of the AiG article, EdChem (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, there weren't actually any replies to my comment at the time of removal, so I didn't see a problem. 1990'sguy's comment was directed at Guy Macon.

• I agree, but I never declared there was any consensus, anyway. I just said that it seems to be moving in that direction. We'll see where the talk page takes us.
• Yes, the grouping together of nature and universal origins makes any potential phrasing awkward. Maybe split the two apart, saying many natural causes are rejected when it comes to nature and all natural causes are rejected when it comes to universal origins? Let's see what you and the others can come up with.
• The thing is: I was doing exactly what you are describing for a large chunk of the past week. However, when I started a discussion, all the issues I have raised have been dismissed as "not an issue" without any explanation. When I requested an explanation, I was only told that there is no consensus for my proposal, and hence it cannot be implemented. No better solution was proposed, and no issues with my proposal were identified. If you look at the page history, you will see that before the reason/God's Word edit, I wasn't edit-warring at all, and, in fact, made a total of 1/2 revert(s) before that point. My actual edit-warring started when other editors starting re-adding content that is obviously false (that there is a dichotomy between human reason and God's Word according to AiG), and directly contradicted by a number of sources that I had already provided on the talk page by that point; by that time, I was already getting desperate, as all conventional methods of resolving dispute had failed. This also coincided with my reversions of jps's edits, which were made without consensus. I agree that discussion through summary notes is inferior to discussion on talk page, but, for that reason, I have started a discussion on every change that I have proposed. I didn't start a discussion on jps's edits because the onus was on them to do so and because I was already very, very tired of starting discussions. I didn't recognise the gist of jps's edit because it was not stated. I apologise for being defensive, but I am just describing how I see the situation. I have genuinely first tried five or more recommended methods of approach (discussion, compromise proposal, adaptive editing, appnoting, dispute resolution noticeboard) many times over, but every single one of them led to the same reaction from disagreeing editors: no consensus = no change.
• Can you please quote a passage where Wikipedia's voice implies God's existence? I don't really understand what specifically you are referring to. ^Ol^Ja 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis

I would have thought you might edit with more care after a week long block, I have removed your qualification on the Answers in Genesis article as it is not supported by the source please, feel free to add back with a suitable source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: Are these good sources, in your opinion? [5] [6]. "Creation science is real science".^Ol^Ja 19:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

They are primary sources so not ideal. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: You are not going to find a reliable secondary source which explicitly says that AiG promote creation science because this statement is so specific. However, if it is clear that AiG promote creation science on their website/if the explicitly say that themselves, we are definitely safe in saying that AiG promote creation science. AiG's website is a reliable source for what AiG believe. Furthermore, the fact that creation science is promoted by AiG is stated all over the article, so if you remove my statement, you should also remove every other similar statement in the article (there are lots of them!). Do you reckon it's fine if I restore my edit with the link that I gave you as reference?^Ol^Ja 19:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Better than nothing I suppose. Theroadislong (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

But please format the source correctly you can find help here WP:REFB we don't use bare urls for sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we'll do that in a minute.^Ol^Ja 20:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you use the talk page to gain any consensus for your edits. Theroadislong (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, which was given to me by at least a bazillion users at this point, but I think I already got it... a loooong time ago.^Ol^Ja 21:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you haven't "got it" - it is disruptive to use extended edit summaries in place of discussion on the article's talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, reverting my own edit and using an edit summary note to explain the decision is clearly disruptive. Thanks, Theroadislong. I'll never self-revert or use edit summaries ever again👍 ^Ol^Ja 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

YEC is not a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

It is based on literal interpretations of Genesis, but it itself is not an interpretation. See Young Earth creationism. jps (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Not mutually exclusive and only backs up my point. The idea of Christian God is based on the Bible. The idea of God is also part of the Bible. Furthermore, If YEC is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, it doesn't make sense to put YEC first. It's like saying "I love cats and animals". Also, your version is awkwardly phrased. You say "as an alternative". Alternative to what? And "results of scientific investigation" sounds better to me than "scientific investigations" as it makes a more general statement. Finally, consider working from an edit and improving it rather than reverting it altogether.^Ol^Ja 01:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: Not mutually exclusive? What are you talking about? Your edit summary claimed that YEC was an interpretation of the Book of Genesis. It is not. Now you are saying that we should put the general case before the specific? But the point is that AiG is most well-known as a promoter of YEC. It bases this promotion on a belief in a literal Genesis. See how easy it is to say the first thing before the other?

Part of the issue seems to be that you cannot let go of your own arrogant belief that you and you alone know how to edit this article. Take a breath and try to see that we're all on the same side here, but your intransigence makes it difficult to collaborate with you.

jps (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: Is it that hard to understand? YEC is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. It also is itself a literal interpretation of Genesis. What's not clear? I even gave you an example. I think this issue is quite straightforward. I've made another small edit which puts YEC first but also avoids grammatical mistakes/ambiguities.

I do not have that belief at all. What I do have, though, is the belief that I am one of the few editors who does not apply double standards, but this position is overwhelmingly justifiable. If anything, it's not even you that I have a problem with; I used to edit like you before my first block. It's the other editors that are blatantly discriminating against me that I am particularly frustrated with.^Ol^Ja 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

YEC is not a literal interpretation of Genesis. It is a claim about the age of the Earth vis-a-vis creationism. See Young Earth creationism where this is explained in exquisite detail. In any case, the edit you just made was fine, but you've got to learn to collaborate and discuss if you are going to avoid getting into hot water. jps (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: Well, the YEC article only seems to confirm that YEC is indeed biblically literal. Here is a quote that proves this definitively: "biblically literal young Earth". I would personally still prefer my first version, but the current version doesn't have any obvious mistakes and is factually accurate, so I am fine. Although telling me to learn to collaborate is a bit hypocritical. I mean: both of us know that the two of us tried to collaborate at the start, right? So what's the problem? And bear in mind that it's always the editor who makes an edit that needs to justify that edit - I did not need to justify reverting to the status quo. If you had first taken the time to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page, I can assure you we would have gotten to the same conclusion much quicker and without any unnecessary edit-warring. Also, bear in mind that it may sometimes be disruptive to make an edit to something that's just been discussed extensively for a month and eventually agreed upon. I am not blaming you, as you have at least, unlike practically every other editor on the page, managed to accept a compromise, but I am just letting you know.^Ol^Ja 17:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Have it your way. Your high-handedness will just get you into more trouble. You have convinced yourself that it is impossible for you to be wrong. This only will end badly. jps (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you saying this? Of course I can be wrong. In fact, if you look at AiG's talk page, you will see multiple instances of me admitting problems with some of my proposals. And "high-handedness"? If anything, I am the low-handed party here. I have no power over AiG's page whatsoever. I wasn't even allowed to correct a grammatical mistake without my edit being reverted. I don't see why you have this attitude towards me. We seemed to have finally done a piece of collaborative work that we are both happy with, so why be bitter about it? ^Ol^Ja 21:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not bitter. What's happening here is that you are on the defensive and are not seeing that your responses are needlessly provoking negative reactions in people with whom you can perfectly well collaborate. When I tell you that you are being high-handed, that is how it comes across to me. It does not matter if you don't see it that way.

All you need to do is bury the hatchet and move on. A simple, "let's agree to disagree and continue to work together" is fine. Instead, I see compounding defensiveness that is indicative of the kind of responses that eventually get people into trouble. I'm trying to explain to you how your responses come across to me and, judging from your history, I'm not the only one who has a problem with your behavior. Take it for what it is. Either accept it as a critique that I have with which you are free to disagree but that probably indicates a general issue, or ignore it and continue down the path you're going down.

That's really all this is.

jps (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason why I may come across as aggressive/provocative is that I am extremely frustrated and for pretty obvious reasons, too. If you look at some of Guy Macon's or Roxy the dog's edits or comments, you will see why. I apologise if I came across as such, but I hope you understand. But I disagree that I'm being defensive - I'm just justifying my point of view, which I believe is correct. Although I do agree that arguing about something that we've already resolved is a bit useless - but that applies to you as well.

Honestly, I'm fine with that approach! In fact, we don't even need to disagree - we are both happy with the current version, after all!

P.s. just a remark on your comment about my history: it's always the same people that have a problem with my behaviour, so I wouldn't generalise. Also, I am not sure how much sense I am making, as I've done 10 hours-worth of assignment today and had no sleep, so forgive me if some of my sentences are not coherent.^Ol^Ja 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to get some sleep and perhaps take a breather from Wikipedia. Unlike your assignments, there is WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia we will be here when you get back. jps (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

OJ, I don't know if you have encountered jps much before, and apologies if this is not new to you, but I think it's worth knowing some background.

• jps has been around WP for nearly 15 years.
• He has been very active in dealing with pseudoscience and has run into more than his fair share of trouble over the years – so when he says that the path you have been on has trouble ahead, he really really knows what he is talking about.
• He is an editor who I respect and have respected for many years because he is dedicated to fair and accurate coverage of science on WP. If he came to me to say I was wrong or doing something unwise, I would immediately stop and reflect. If I disagreed after that, I would discuss and seek to understand his perspective as likely to be valuable.
• There are editors here who fixate and rules and policy and can completely lose sight of our goal of appropriate encyclopaedic content. There are editors who frequent ANI who only look at behaviour and have no ability to see that someone edit warring may be in the wrong on behavioural grounds, but have been fighting in an unwise way for an important goal. jps is emphatically not in either of these groups.

He has struggled with living within the rules over the years, but never loses sight of the content.  I advise you to listen to him when he speaks, though also to avoid following him in the types of actions that have led him into trouble in the past.  You can really learn a lot from jps, about both content and handling disputes / disagreements.

• I have yet to check the ANI thread today, but even if you do get topic banned, you can work in less controversial areas and learn more about how WP works. Many editors never run into difficulties editing in areas of interest and so never need to engage with the administrative side of the project. You are in a controversial topic with lots of the administrative side becoming involved, which means more detailed issues around policy, more focus on behaviour, and more editors whose interests / agendas that will surprise you. You can learn about it, which will take time and inevitably involve mis-steps, or you can retreat from the area.

EdChem (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

For the most part, what you are saying matches up with the image that I had of jps: an experienced editor who, for the most part, tries to tackle pseudoscience in appropriate ways, but who perhaps is more oriented towards content than towards WP policies. One thing that I've also noticed is that he may sometimes be too "brutal" with pseudoscience-related topics to the point that a slightly softer wording would be more factually accurate, and that his grammar is the only thing that keeps his edits from being spot-on. That said, he tries to be collaborative, and, as I have found, it was definitely easier than I had at first expected for me to find a compromise with him. If you look at ANI and even here, you will see that I have no problem with him at all, and that, if anything, I am willing to listen to his advice and take it on. The only grip that I had with him was that he was accusing me of not discussing the issue, when the WP:ONUS was on them to discuss, and they hadn't done so. Other than that, you will find that I do respect him, even though, as indicated many times by jps, this feeling is not mutual.^Ol^Ja 14:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

[Self revert]

[Self revert]

Per WP:TPOC do not delete other editors posts at ANI as you did here. FYI editors are allowed to vote on any proposal even ones they create. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Noted, but this has previously been done to me. Thanks for clarification, won't do that again.^Ol^Ja 00:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful

I think you might have passed 3RR again at Answers in Genesis. To be clear, I think we wound up in a good place and have no problem with you. But when your conduct is questioned, it pays to be extra scrupulous. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thankfully, I haven't yet passed 3RR and am only on 1 revert in the last 24 hours, but your advice seems wise, given that user:Guettarda has now used this edit to argue for my topic ban. My reasoning was that my edit respected WP:BRD, and we seemed to have arrived at an agreement very quickly, but, I guess, any revert will be used against me in a situation such as this one.^Ol^Ja 11:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't use that edit to argue for your topic ban, I used it to show that you're continuing to engage in the kind of problematic behaviour that warrants one. If you're counting reverts, you're doing it wrong. Once the ANI report was opened, you should have stopped reverting. The sensible thing would have been to edit somewhere else entirely, to show that you can walk away from a page when you find yourself getting too involved. Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Guettarda: Well, that was the only reason you provided, so pardon me for assuming that was your argument. Either way, I don't see how that behaviour is problematic when I have both stated in the edit summary that my edit should be reverted if necessary and it was complying with WP:BRD. It's always interesting to discuss what I should have done, but it will never be of any use, as I can't change the past. The more helpful discussion would be on what I should(n't) do in the future. And, indeed, I won't be reverting or, for that matter, making any non-null edits on AiG until the discussion comes to a close. But think it might be too late.

P.s. I was only counting the reverts because of asked whether 3RR had been violated, which requires us to count the reverts.^Ol^Ja 13:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Without having looked at the edits in question let me point out that WP:3RR used a specific definition of "revert": An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. An edit does not actually need to revert the page to a previous state to count as a revert in the WP:3RR sense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we may have a case of mismatched definitions here. There certainly seems to be some sort of confusion. Thanks Stephan. Dumuzid (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

[Self revert]

Some wiki terms

If I may, let me explain a few terms that you are running into problems with. We need to talk 3RR, but that's more complex, so start with something easier:

• Null edit: A null edit happens where you go to a page / section, open the edit window, and press save without making any change. It does not save an edit summary. It's purpose is to get the software to trigger a refresh. It's something you would do rarely unless you are doing some category work.
• Dummy edit: A dummy edit happens when your edit to a page does not change the content as it appears to readers but does include a change in length. For example, changing a single space to a double space, or adding a space on a blank line. It allows you to save an edit summary that leaves a note for other editors in the history without changing the article content.

What you did when adding to the hyphen was (I think) meant to be a dummy edit, but it was not one as the content was changed. Since there was a change in content, the edit summary that you left should have described the edit you made ("add hyphen" or "expression should be hyphenated" or similar, maybe even just "ce", meaning copy edit), and not been used to leave a note. The note you did leave had noting to do with the edit made, which is why I didn't understand it. Further, using dummy edits to leave a note in the history should not be done when what is needed is a discussion on the talk page. Sometimes both are appropriate. For example, if I reverted something and pressed "publish changes" without filling in the edit summary, I might follow with a dummy edit with summary "Oops, meant to leave an edit summary on the revert above: Reverted because XXX" or "...: Revert edit without consensus, see talk for discussion."

Guy Macon is right that your edit summary on adding the hyphen was inappropriate as it did not explain the edit. It was also not really a cause for a dummy edit when a talk page discussion asking the editor for the reason for their action, etc, would have been better. It is true that explanations like that are given in edit summaries all the time, but the more heated a discussion, the more desirable to go ultra-conservative in avoiding provocation... especially when we are under scrutiny. At this moment, with an ANI thread open and a topic ban proposal gaining support, think of yourself as under a huge and powerful microscope and being examined by a crowd that includes some very unforgiving editors. You could perhaps reply to Guy Macon's latest ANI post and offer some undertakings to avoid adding to the heat. I am willing to assume that you are really confused about some things, but some others are not... so I really think that you would be wise at the moment to adopt a motto like "if in doubt, don't... if you think it's ok but are not certain, don't." Self control is one thing you can show to ANI, as well as reducing heat and tensions even if you don't agree / understand the reasons for it. EdChem (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand it was not a dummy edit, but that's what it was meant to be. It did change content, but in a way that appeared uncontroversial to me, hence why I thought it would be appropriate for me to use it as a dummy edit; I was wrong. After understanding that even something as insignificant as this edit could get me into trouble, I have now convinced myself that it's better I simply leave the page altogether and not edit it at all - even if I don't doubt my edits (as was the case with this hyphen).

Honestly speaking, I do not believe that I am really confused as far as policies go: the only confusions on my part involved self-reverts and null/dummy edits. What I am confused about is how my editing is tendentious, nay, IDHT, when all that I've been doing since my latest block was either reverting edits without consensus or (mostly successfully) coming up with compromises.^Ol^Ja 23:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you see there are several things to note:

• Since it was not a dummy edit, the edit summary should have addressed the content
• If it had actually been a dummy edit, was the summary appropriate and something that was needed in the history, or should it have been a talk page post?
• It was not the edit that got you into problems, it was the summary
• Calton's revert, which has now been admitted was a mistake, was likely a response to seeing the summary. If Calton thought it was a dummy edit, there was no need to revert, but he did so as to record an edit summary response (an inappropriate one, too) to your edit summary. A talk page post would have avoided this.
• Only edit the article to make changes that are needed / justified / supported to it, and leave a summary that addresses only content. "Discussion" by edit summary is not a good idea, and it is much worse in an environment of dispute / tension or on a topic that is controversial.

On the policy issues, IDHT is used at ANI all the time to mean things like that a response doesn't address the points made, that a response is a simple repetition of arguments already made, or that fails to acknowledge things others have said. Responses like "but XYZ did ABC" can also be IDHT as they divert attention to the actions of others without responding to the comments on your own actions. Defending yourself by pointing out that you have been successfully building consensus is reasonable, though more persuasive if it is balanced (by recognising actions that have been unproductive) or if supported by others involved. However, arguing that bad behaviour should be forgiven because of other good behaviour doesn't work. Positive actions will often go unrecognised and dealing with problems means recognising them, admitting mistakes, explaining areas of confusion, undertaking to avoid them, etc. I don't mean to just post BS to placate people as it doesn't work, so don't say you were wrong unless you (a) believe you were wrong, or (b) see why what you did is not allowed under policy (whether or not you think it should be allowed) and are willing to abide by policy, or (c) can say you don't understand but you will abide by a ruling not to do it. No one expects perfection, but a willingness to reflect and examine your actions, to take on board advice and criticism, and to undertake to do better goes a long way. I know that you have taken on advice, some conflicting, and still run into more troubles. If I'm given conflicting advice or don't know what to do, I go and ask someone I respect at that user's talk page, and I go fully intending to listen even if I don't understand. Tendentious editors act with an agenda, ignore advice, and pursue what they want at all costs. The best way to avoid being accused of being disruptive / tendentious is to edit in such a way as to have a history that doesn't support the accusation. If something is getting heated, go and do something else or edit in another area. Be willing to post that you don't agree with something but will respect consensus. Use dispute resolution procedures rather than warring, even if you think you are right. WP is a collaborative project and those editors who act in a collaborative fashion will be supported if issues come to ANI. Guy M, for example, has a long history and will generally be taken seriously (another reason that counter-claims at ANI can be dangerous), so if you did need to post something about his behaviour, it had better be solid. jps, despite his faults, will attract notice and support from science-minded editors who know his work. ANI can be a political place, and you have (through ignorance) handled yourself in an unwise manner.

On the WP:3RR policy, you have been pointed to a quote several times above. Have a look at the history of ferrocene (which I edited yesterday), and tell me what you think in light of the policy?

EdChem (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the pseudo-dummy edit, I do believe that directing a user who has made an edit which seemed to go against what other users have expressed on the talk page to the related talk page discussion was appropriate - especially that this edit was identical in nature to one of my previous edits, which practically got reverted ([7]). Perhaps, I shouldn't have used the word "consensus", as it appears to be very contentious, but I do believe that the edit summary deserved a place in the page history.

On IDHT, I do not believe that any one of the three things listed applies to me: I (at least try to) always address only the points made in a particular comment; while I do repeat some of my arguments, most of my arguments are, nevertheless, either different or yet unaddressed; I have acknowledged at least some things that others have said, including the definitions of a self-revert and a dummy-edit, I have acknowledged that mentorship might be a good idea, I have acknowledged that I have been unnecessarily aggressive, I have acknowledged that I shouldn't make any more changes to AiG's page while a discussion at ANI about me is going on: the list goes on. The "but XYZ did ABC" template, I admit, is probably overused on my part, but saying that "arguments" like these are the only arguments I make simply wouldn't be true.

I will definitely take on your advice about dealing with conflicting or dubious bits of advice (apologise for unnecessary tautology); however, it might just be too late. Although if how I go about dealing with advice by others is part of the big problems with my editing, I can guarantee that, from now on, I will only approach it the right way.

Yes, history, as I have seen, is 100% a big factor that editors consider when evaluating my behaviour. The reason for my bad history, however, is that I am very stubborn when I am very confident that I am right (believe it or not, in most situations where I am confident that I am right, I do, eventually, turn out to be right), and it is this stubbornness that led to these 4 blocks of mine - not at all tendentious editing. Unfortunately, simply leaving something that I am very positive is wrong simply won't work for me; if something needs fixing, I will try and fix it. Perhaps, I should have been wiser in trying to fix this 'something', but because I haven't, I have already received a week's block. Why do I also have to get a topic ban on top of that? Thanks to your explanation, I now understand that my "but XYZ did ABC" approach, my bad history, and my aggressiveness have all been big contributors to the overwhelming number of 'support' !votes in favour of my topic ban; however, why not at least give me the benefit of the doubt and see if the most recent block and the enormous amount of advice given to me on ANI has taught me anything? After all, I haven't even been warned that a topic ban might be imposed on me, and I'm even open to the idea mentorship, which will guarantee my editing won't be disruptive. While I do admit that my editing has been far from perfect, I do not understand why I should at least be given the last chance.

As to 3RR on ferrocene: to be honest with you, I am a bit confused; I don't really see any reverts in recent history? Am I missing something?^Ol^Ja 14:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You have had the following quoted at you several times: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

Look at these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Are any of these reverts under the definition given in this quote? EdChem (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean: I was just a bit confused, as I thought 3RR did not include self-reverts, which, clearly, is the most that all but one of these edits can be. Either way, I only found the very first edit to be a revert - of a very, very distant edit. Am I right?^Ol^Ja 10:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

PS: The ANI close without a sanction was lucky for you... take it as the second / last chance you sought because if you are seen by others as disruptive, a second ANI visit for the same reason will end badly, IMO. Starting from an "I'm right" premise is dangerous, especially if you can't / don't recognise that there is often not simply one right way. There can be multiple ways to present something that are policy compliant and accurate. If you remember my suggestion 1H from earlier, which we both thought was appropriate / reasonable / accurate, etc. It's not in the article, but something else that covers the same material is, and I'm fine with that. Yes, you've been working to get compromise and consensus in some cases, which is good, but you'll find it easier if others don't feel you are trying to win or prove yourself right or whatever. People with strong opinions and high levels of confidence aren't rare on WP, but those who can't accept their own limitations and admit to mistakes, and worse who see themselves as purveyors of THE TRUTH and so are inflexible, don't last once the get into conflict in controversial areas. I noticed in your comments to jps that you are a student, which brings with it a potentially great amount of knowledge and familiarity with sources... and a potential for over-confidence. I was a student when I started at WP and have learned that with complexity comes uncertainty, that in many areas multiple perspectives are valid, and that what can appear at first as fact may actually be heavily tinged with opinion. I have three degrees (including a PhD), have worked as a researcher and academic, and none of that gives me any extra status as a WP editor – what status I may have is earned from others' appreciation for and recognition of my edits. Even when I know I'm right, when I'm writing in core areas of my expertise, I still need to substantiate my work with sources, respond politely and colleagially to queries / challenges / disputes / reverts, and work with WP policy for the goal of good encyclopaedic content. You can be a valued / respected / appreciated Wikipedian because you have writing skills, knowledge, and research ability... but like any workplace (and WP is a workplace, though an unpaid one) it is also a community with social norms and interactions and where being able to work with others is important (and vital in areas being edited actively). You are learning about the latter, I admit it is challenging and that some rules appear arbitrary or unhelpful, and that some editors can be very unfriendly / confrontational. I hope you persevere in your efforts. Regards, EdChem (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I view it as, although it seems like it's not over just yet. The problem is: I never start from a dogmatic "I'm right" perspective; if anything, it's the opposite: I assume that I'm wrong, listen to the argument proposed by whoever is telling me that I'm wrong, and then only reject my initial assumption if I find that argument distinctively unconvincing (and even then I don't just I assume that I'm right - I just don't yet accept the fact that I am wrong). If the argument is not that, I carry on assuming that I am wrong. If you look at the talk page, you will find many examples of me admitting my mistakes and changing my opinions following arguments posed by others. Furthermore, I do absolutely recognise there is more than one right way - which is why I was happy to adapt so many compromises proposed by other users. The reason I was so adamant in so many of my edits is that, even using this approach, there were still instances where there was enough evidence for me to reject the fact I'm wrong - such instances included outright violations of clearly stated WP policies and clear cases of hypocrisy. My problem is not that I assume that I judge myself to be right too often or too confidently - it's that when I do judge that I'm right, I get really stubborn.

Indeed, I am a student; however, if anything, that serves me as a reminder that many editors here are more experienced than I am, with many editors (like you) already having multiple degrees to their name. I do concede that my status here is minimal, and the fact that I'm a student serves but to exacerbate that fact. I greatly appreciate your desire to help, and you have already helped me greatly and understand me as an editor well in many ways; however, this is one of those rare cases where you have misunderstood what kind of editor I am: I am not arrogant, inflexible, or overly confident - instead, I am stubborn, persistent, easily frustrable (when I believe I'd been treated unfairly), and unable to let go when needed. With that said, once again, thanks a lot for sacrificing so much of your time and effort to trying to help me.^Ol^Ja 11:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

How you see yourself, what you know of your intentions, those are not necessarily the same as how others perceive you or how they interpret your actions. Look at the list GM made at ANI, and consider not whether the comments are accurate / fair, but whether they may seem accurate / fair to an outsider. Perhaps offer a response the addresses his points from the perspective of someone who sees them as accurate or fair, or at least as reasonably so. You are correct that I don't know you, I have my perceptions that are coloured by my own experiences and by considering the comments of others. It is inevitable that my perceptions will be inaccurate and unfair at times, and I hope open to change in response to new information... and you need to consider whether a perception is an understandable interpretation of your actions even if that does not reflect your intent.

As a simple example, editor XYZ is criticised at ANI for doing A, B, and C. Late in the discussion, editor JKL comments that XYZ appears to have stopped doing A, B, and C, but has not committed to not restarting them. Let's suppose that XYZ had made an explicit statement about A and made comments about / around the topics of B and C that XYZ sees as implicit commitments. What does XYZ do?

• XYZ could post a response directed at JKL, pointing out that XYZ did make a commitment about A. XYZ could criticise JKL for misrepresentation, perhaps imply bad faith on JKL's part, maybe point at an example of JKL doing A. But, consider how an uninvolved editor might XYZ on reading the ANI thread. Pointing to the comment about A is fine (ideally with a diff), but wording it in a confrontational or critical way will come across poorly. The rest would come across as tu quoque, as someone spoiling for a fight, and make XYZ appear unreasonable, adding weight to JKL's comments. It can be presented much better as "On A, I have made a commitment to WHATEVER, and noted this earlier at diff."
• XYZ could point to comments the addressed B and C by inference, but at the cost of making XYZ appear difficult – if XYZ is willing to commit to something, why point at previous comments and not just make a clear statement. Such a posting could also raise suspicions of carefully worded comments that seem to address a point while leaving wiggle room to debate later. If pointing to the prior comments is necessary, it would come across better as "I thought diff diff diff addressed this point, but as this has not been read as I anticipated / intended, allow me to clarify: STATEMENT." Or, "On B and C: STATEMENT. My earlier comments (diffs) were meant to reflect this intent, though I understand that this may not have been clear."

I write this as a hypothetical as I don't want to get diverted into details of GM's comments or your situation – my point is about general approach, that making a clear statement on what you are willing to commit to is more effective than debating what you have said previously or how earlier comments should have been taken, or diverting to topics other than your future intentions. If / how you respond to GM is your call. Just be aware that committing to something and then not following through is likely to be damaging in the long term, so don't promise what you can't / won't deliver. If you have objections, state them clearly without shifting focus and be prepared to discuss / compromise. EdChem (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it's more effective, but I had tried both approaches, and neither seemed to work. Although I think you may be right that making a clear commitment is yet more effective than debating my earlier behaviour - I will try this approach as well. This situation here, however, is different, as it seems that my comments may actually influence the outcome of the discussion (before that, I was convinced I'd get a topic ban). I will now go ahead and reply to Guy Macon's comment.^Ol^Ja 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for review of page split possibility

Hi, especially if you are still logged in, could you spare time to review my proposed page split at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity/Noticeboard#What_to_do_about_Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Epiphyllumlover: Sure, done Can you please also take a quick look at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#User:Oldstone James edits?^Ol^Ja 00:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard escalation is a problem

Did you run it by EdChem? If not, I suggest withdrawing and discussing with him first. jps (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the problem of requesting dispute resolution?^Ol^Ja 20:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice if you asked the people involved if they would like to do this. I typically really don't like WP:DRN for historical reasons. jps (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Genesis creation narrative; 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Am I? Haven't I stated that I won't restore this edit again? And haven't I only restored my edit once?^Ol^Ja 21:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello Oldstone James,

WP: SIGNATURE says "Make sure that your signature is easily readable". Can you please make adjustments to your signature? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What exactly shall I change?^Ol^Ja 22:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Try making it easily readable. I cannot read it at all. It looks like abstract art to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Abstract art XD Fairs, I've changed it up a bit. Hopefully, this one will do.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 10:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for showing good faith with the recent change to this: ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} Sorry to be a bother, but it's still fairly difficult to read and the contrast of your white-on-lavender is still below 4.5 at 3.378.

If it were me, I'd drop the non-white backgrounds, choose one or two text colors from the "Recommended" list at MOS:ONWHITE, apply whatever styling tricks you want, and be done with it. Non-white backgrounds are a personal peeve as I feel they are too visually distracting in a discussion, but a recent proposal to ban them outright failed to gain community consensus.

At the very least, please make sure your contrast is above 4.5, using a contrast calculator such as the one used for the values in the MOS:ONWHITE tables, here. That wouldn't immunize you to future complaints about readability, but it would help.

Again let me stress that this is not mere aesthetic nitpicking but about accessability, something that Wikipedia takes somewhat seriously by WMF edict. Thank you, and feel free to ping me if I can be of any help with this. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sorry for responding so late; I have no idea how I missed this comment, but I'm only now seeing it for the first time. I've changed my signature so that it now looks like this: ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC). Hopefully, this one is okay by your criteria (I've tried to follow the criteria as best as I could), but feel free to let me know if the new signature also needs correction.

Yeah, I thought this might be lost in the flurry of comments around the same time. I was going to give it another week and then poke you just to make sure you saw it. Glad you saw it without that.

The contrast values now exceed the recommended minimum, and dropping the non-white backgrounds is a major improvement. I think I'd go one step further and bold the text: ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} I assume the question mark means something to you even if lost on everybody else. In any case, I appreciate the refreshingly positive response! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Great! I bolded the text now, as per your recommendations. The question mark was originally meant to ask the reader if they had any questions, in which case I'd assumed they would've intuitively clicked on it, but it seems like this intuition is limited to me. Shall I remove it? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody is going to get that meaning. I'd remove it. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Done! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Near perfection! (The only perfect signature is mine.) ―Mandruss ☎ 17:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm filled with pure honour and pride upon hearing this compliment, coming from the almighty God of Signatures himself!^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin block me for a month?

@Black Kite: @Boing! said Zebedee: @Doug Weller: @Guettarda: I find that I've been distracted by Wikipedia far too often, at a time when I have other very important RL work to do. Can someone block this account for a month to prevent myself from getting distracted by it?^Ol^Ja 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, yes, we can do that, but are you genuinely sure that's what you want? If your login is connected to an email address, why not simply scramble your password and then use your email address to log in when you feel you want to? Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I think this would be the best option for me. I thought about something like what you are suggesting, but I want to make sure there is no way that I can edit on this account. Knowing myself, I'd probably reset the password in the first small pocket of free time that I'd dig out for myself. I can confirm that this account (though preferably not account creation from IP) shall be blocked for a month.^Ol^Ja 00:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• OK, fine, I have blocked you for a month. See you on 21 May. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot.^Ol^Ja 00:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(Possibly) last message before WP:WIKIBREAK

@EdChem: I see that I have misrepresented your pov; feel free to correct my counts summary comment by striking through incorrect text and replacing it with more accurate content. This applies to any editor who spots a mistake in that comment. @ජපස: As for opening a DRN thread before a self-block request, I figured that I've already stated my key arguments, and so DRN can simply decide which side's arguments are more convincing; this, I figured, could be done without me. I have a similar opinion of the ANI thread, where a verdict can be established without any additional input on my part. @Samsara: Based on your reply to a message I posted on your talk page, it seems like you had already formed an opinion on the matter previously, but my DRN request only encouraged you to re-state that opinion more clearly. Am I right? I might just comment on your last sentence, the violation of the "if everybody did that" principle: from my perspective, a large number of users monitor my activity, so it is pretty certain that, whatever edit I make, at least one of the many such editors will disagree with this edit – even if it appears to me and often others that the edit is an obvious improvement to the article (e.g., in this manner, my edits involving grammatical corrections such as removal of comma splices and spelling corrections were reverted). Of course, I can't simply restore my edit, so the only thing left for me to do is to start long talk page discussions, post on DRN, ask for 3O, etc – basically, in your words, create "unmanageable complexity". Such a process wastes much more of my time than it does other editors' time, as very nearly every single edit that I make on creationism-related articles – even very minor and obvious – needs to be discussed in detail before it can be implemented, if at all (tell you a secret: it is this enormous wasting of my time that led to my self-block request). Quite naturally, if every Wikipedia user somehow monitored every other Wikipedia user's activity as closely as mine, Wikipedia would be, quite literally, uneditable. I know that this comment won't change your opinion on me, and that isn't the intention, but I hope you get a better perspective on my pov.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 12:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

[Self revert]

Thanks, I'll think about it, but for now I thought I'd keep the talk page open just in case. Especially when things like bots erroneously saying I filed an unblock request keep happening...^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Oldstone James (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #24820 was submitted on Apr 21, 2019 14:38:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I didn't ask to get unblocked! I have no idea why this is here.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

We have had some apparently faked unblock requests recently, so this is probably one of them - I've made a note in the UTRS report. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, as it does seem like it is indeed a "faked unblock request".^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community editing restriction

Per the community consensus at this discussion, you are indefinitely banned from all articles and edits on the topic of creationism, broadly construed. This ban has some exceptions. I suggest you familiarise yourself with them, but be very wary of using them; the cases where they apply have to be very obvious to other people, not just to you. There is no particular consensus on how long this ban will be necessary; the normal course is to show that you can edit productively and collaboratively with editors in other areas and request that the ban be removed in six to twelve months. The usual forum for this is the administrators' noticeboard.

I do hope you will come back from your self-requested block and become a productive editor here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I am obviously not blaming you for imposing the ban, but the actual decision to topic-ban me on creationism is totally inappropriate – regardless of what the consensus says. Here are some reasons why a topic ban was not an appropriate decision:

1. I hadn't even been warned that I might be topic-banned, and so I wasn't even given a chance to prove that a ban might not be necessary. Once the topic ban proposal was posted on ANI, I immediately made it clear that I had changed my behaviour (see 3.) and won't be disruptive from then on.
2. The topic ban was proposed straight after my block had expired, and I had barely done any editing in the meantime. I had not violated any policy which warrants a block, such as WP:3RR, and the only edit-warring (2 non-BRD reverts) that did take place was a result of my misunderstanding of what a self-revert is: I had immediately admitted that I was wrong. Furthermore, while of course not a justification, these only reverted an edit that had absolutely no consensus at the time. Other than that, I showed signs that I had learnt from my block and had taken on advice given to me by other users (such as taking to the talk page before reinstating my edit and not assuming consensus even if I believe it is there ([8] – note how this is a reversion to WP:STATUSQUO and not to my preferred version).
3. I had demonstrated on numerous occasions that I was willing to listen to what others editors had to say, and I also demonstrated my desire to become a better editor. I accepted almost every advice that I was given since the ANI post. Here are some examples:

• "The advice here to you is, in essence, to disengage" by user:Guettarda on WP:ANI, referring to the edits I made on Answers in Genesis. Since that comment, the only two edits I made on the page were adding a comma and a hyphen. I have also now gotten myself voluntarily blocked in order to disengage from edits on all pages.
• [9] Related, this advice by user:jps is to "take a breather from Wikipedia". This was the main reason for my self-requested block: I realised I was spending too much time on Wikipedia, while I had lots of real-life work to do.
• "...my point is about general approach, that making a clear statement on what you are willing to commit to is more effective than debating what you have said previously or how earlier comments should have been taken" by user:EdChem on my Talk Page, referring in part to this comment by Guy Macon. My reply was "I will try this approach as well" to EdChem, and my reply to Guy Macon included "I will not claim consensus ever again", but I have also adopted this approach in other comments.
• "ANI sees the Tu quoque fallacy a lot -- most recently by Oldstone James -- and will not allow anyone else's behavior to excuse bad behavior" and "And anyway, Yeah, but they're just as bad! is just about as weak an argument you can make... so don't make it" by Guy Macon and jps, respectively on WP:ANI. My reply to the latter's comment included "I've already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case" and "That's just my position - not an argument. Never said stating this position is a good idea" (admitting my tu-quoque-based position was never a good idea). I hadn't resorted to tu quoque since.

I can provide numerous other examples (feel free to demand them from me) of me taking on the advice of others and acting on said advice, admitting my mistakes, and showing my intention to become a better editor, but I think that would render this already long comment Tl;DR. My argument here is not even that I wasn't even given a chance to redeem myself – it's that I wasn't given a chance to redeem myself, then dug that chance out for myself, and did my best to take it, and yet all my efforts were still ignored. Note how even if I was simply promising that I would stop without any evidence to back that up, the best approach would sometimes be to give me the benefit of the doubt as per WP:ROPE – let alone when there is also a fair amount of evidence for that promise being genuine. Please recall that bans and blocks "serve to protect the project from harm and reduce likely future problems" – NOT to punish users (WP:NOPUNISH).

1. (4.) Why topic-ban me? Every single one of the edits brought up at ANI was in relation to my edits on one single page, and these edits did not display any obvious POV relating to creationism. Wouldn't a WP:PBAN hence be more appropriate? Why creationism? This decision seems very arbitrary to me.

I do appreciate that the consensus was to topic-ban me on creationism; however, this consensus does not appear rational to me. I would plead with you or some other uninvolved administrator to look into the issue and judge whether the decision to topic-ban me was appropriate.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:

[Self revert]

"When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made." The quality of the arguments in support of my topic ban was lacking. I only called the closing administrator to re-assess that. Also, unrelated, but you have pleaded to:

1. "Be unfailingly polite, even to vandals, let alone regulars with whom I disagree", while you have been aggressive to me on a number of occasions, as other editors have also pointed out.

2. "Take the mantra of assuming good faith to within a whisker of absurdity", while also saying that "recent comments by Oldstone James have made it clear that he intends to continue to try to get his way through reverts rather than through discussion and consensus" (I have never stated that; if anything, I had stated the opposite) and also implying that I had been "purposely ignoring multiple clear warnings" (note that not only had I not purposefully ignored "clear warnings", I had not ignored them at all, and instead acted upon them). You have also claimed some bad-faith things about me and claimed them to be facts (such as "Oldstone James has indicated that he was confused over what a revert is", whereas I hadn't actually done so, and also "I asked him to stop blaming other people for his actions. He denies that he ever did that", whereas I have repeatedly stated that I DID blame other people for my action, criticised myself for that, and stated that I won't do that in the future).

3. "Apologise for perceived shortcomings, even on occasions when I think it is barely necessary.", while refusing to admit an obvious case of violation of both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT ([10]), instead accusing me of not being able to "to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines".

You have repeatedly broken every single one of those pledges. Just something to think about, Guy. I have already admitted that I was wrong on several occasions (including ones pointed out by you) and made myself a better editor as a result (although that obviously didn't help). Now it's your turn.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The above does not sound like someone who has "already stomached the fact that tu quoque isn't going to help my case". You do realize that my recommendation is one of the reasons why you were topic banned instead of indefinitely blocked, right?

Taking about me is inappropriate when discussing whether you should have been topic banned. Feel free to file an ANI case that focuses on any misbehavior on my part if you think that you have a case. Or you can add "stop talking about Guy in the middle of a discussion that should be about Oldstone James' behavior" to the long list of advice that you refuse to follow and see how that works out for you.

[Self revert]

Ah, yes, and there was a fourth pledge, too: "Welcome other editors pointing out to me when I fail to meet the first three pledges". Surprise, surprise, you broke that one, too. Come to think of it. What's even the point of making those pledges in the first place if you won't ever stop breaking them – even now, when I have reminded you of them? Yes, I still stand by that statement I made about tu quoque, and my comment was anything but that: I am not even attempting to argue for or against anything here – let alone using your failure to keep the pledges as a basis for any argument that I could make; instead, I am just pointing out some mistakes that you made, as one of your userboxes politely asked me to do ("If they make a mistake, please let them know."). Furthermore, congrats, you won, you got me topic-banned, you got what you so badly wanted and what you went the hell out of your way to achieve, so be happy! Why would you STILL be aggressive, even after you finally got what you had craved for for so long? I don't get it. But, whatever, do whatever you please, my man. I had lost all hope for you as an editor – you can't avoid being a dick and take in constructive criticism even in such a favourable situation as this one, so when ever can you? It's a lost cause. Either way, all the best on Wikipedia and I wish you success with getting more mindless creationist POV-pushers (aka atheists) banned.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If you truly believe you saved me from an indef-block, which I doubt, I welcome you to file another ANI report proposing I be indeffed. Let's see if the community agrees with you.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, back to the old "revert something I don't like" [11]. Well, it's your talk page, so what you want. However, like it or not the advice I gave you still stands. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Oldstone James, here is the present situation. I am not describing what is right, or fair, or should be – I am describing what is:

• GoldenRing is restricted to reading consensus and the consensus in the ANI thread is unambiguous. If GR thought the consensus was unsupported by policy or was irrational, the appropriate approach would have been to post in the ANI thread challenging the policy basis, not to close the discussion. It follows that GR did not see the consensus as unjustified in its policy basis, and nor do I. The question is not whether you or I or anyone else may have a different interpretation, it is whether the interpretation adopted by the consensus position is a reasonable and justifiable interpretation – there is no single 'right' interpretation. So, the only basis for appealing to GR is hopeless. GR can't decide that factors that the discussion weighted much less than you would wish should be used to overrule consensus – that would be a supervote. GR can only look at (1) whether there is a consensus, which is clear in this case, the discussion does not support a summary of no consensus; and, (2) whether the evidence presented and arguments advanced reflect a problem in policy that the proposed ban can address. If you had not edited the genesis creation narrative page, the argument for a page ban may have prevailed, but having moved beyond one page, the topic ban approach became justified. WP has seen plenty of editors who disrupt on page A, receive a ban, and move on to B and C in the same topic, so actions on multiple (more than one) page are regularly met with a topic ban, rather than a page ban.
• The above discussion likely won't count against you when an appeal comes – it is understood that editors receiving topic bans are likely to blow off some steam and express disagreement – but similar comments at an appeal will ensure it fails.
• An effective appeal will likely include:
  • evidence of productive / non-controversial editing of areas well away from the topic ban.
  • evidence of using talk pages to develop consensus when challenged for bold edits, accepting consensus even if it goes against you, and avoiding edit warring behaviours.
  • reflection on what led to the ban, acknowledging its basis and explaining what would be different if the ban was removed – focus on showing that disruption will not recur and not on the roles of others.
• Elements in an appeal that will likely lead it to fail:
  • Rearguing the basis for the ban, especially by suggesting / blaming others for actions you took.
  • Showing no editing history since the ban, as this shows no evidence of collaborative editing and it points to having a singular focus on the area of the topic ban.
  • Arguing that you were right about the content and so the process doesn't matter, or that you were targeted by biased editors preventing you from including the truth in articles.
  • Appealing too soon
  • Conflicts with editors on other topics, especially if it includes any of the editors involved in this topic ban discussion – bearing grudges makes it appear that you have an agenda or can't / won't accept decisions that are not ones you support.
• What happens in the future is something you can influence but not control. The more you focus on the future and not on issues / injustices / whatever from the past, the more likely you are to be seen favourably and be able to successfully appeal. There are many editors who have had rocky periods in their editing, had bans and sanctions imposed, and are valued contributors. I don't like the wording GR used that implied that you are not a productive editor, but I do agree that you can become more productive.
• You have been offered advice of varying quality, and some of it worded in an unfriendly manner, but there are many editors who are hoping that you will stay and grow into being a Wikipedian. Several editors with whom you have clashed still want you to succeed. I don't know how an indef proposal would have been received, but GM is right that not calling for one indicating a willingness to allow you time and space to develop as a Wikipedia contributor.

You asked for the one month block to remove WP as a distraction from your studies for a period, so may I suggest that you accept that the ban has been imposed, that there is nothing you can do about it at the moment, and that some time away and focus on non-WP areas is a good choice for the moment? WP will still be here in a month, as will most of us (likely). Good luck with your assignments / exams / whatever study issues you are facing. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you have pinged me above, Oldstone James, when your comments appear to be entirely directed at another editor; as far as I am aware, we have never interacted before and I have never edited the pages in question. I simply closed this discussion as an uninvolved administrator. I endorse EdChem's comments above fully. I have not imposed a ban on you, the community has. The consensus for it was clear and unambiguous. It was clear that further discussion was not going to change the outcome. Any other result would have been me overruling the community. GoldenRing (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem with OSJ and creationism is that his views were unacceptable to a particular faction of the "community" and he did not self-censor when requested to.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

People don't get blocks or bans for the beliefs, only for the disruption that may result (if any)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case he can believe what he wants as long as he self-censors, because if he expresses his belief, the disruption will be his fault rather than the fault of those who disagree with him.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a way to see it, that I don't necessarily reject... Another is to understand that the encyclopedia can present beliefs but in the light of reliable sources. Other sites and hosting platforms are also there for other purposes (even on a Biblical perspective, "there's a time for everything")... In any case, I find the topic ban unfortunate, but think that it's better than not being able to edit: I'm sure that in less involved areas James can do work that is likely to be appreciated and is most welcome. —PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was grateful as shortly before he left WP he weighed in at "Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church" in opposition to what I perceive to be censorship on that article. Wikipedia has certain "corners" if you will, that are dominated by advocates of a certain POV not shared by the broader wikipedia, and wrap themselves in the mantle of "the community" while doing so, as if that gives them authority.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

got it figured out now: Spiral of silence is the new consensus!--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your blanking of sourced text at Scientific racism

Even if you disagree with what a source says, you can't remove it on the basis of some other article. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If the other article contains well-sourced information and a number of reliable references, I don't see a reason why I can't do that. Here is one peer-reviewed study that found a significant difference in average IQ test performance between individuals identifying as "black" and those identifying as "white" in the United States, with a sample size in the millions and across various institutions: . The article itself contains numerous other references contradicting the claim that I have removed.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

References

No, unless the information you removed was found almost nowhere, it's perfectly acceptable per our WP:NPOV policy which is there to ensure that all major views are represented in relationship to their weight. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yes, and the major views here are NOT represented in proportions of their acceptance. As I said, there are numerous studies showing differences in intelligence between self-identified races, one of which I have provided. However, the article neglects all of that and proceeds to claim that there is no evidence for differences in intelligence. I honestly don't understand what's unclear about what I'm saying. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 12:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Then discuss it at the talk page. The fact that some views may not be represented is not an excuse to remove sourced text. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice

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 intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

/* top */ Discretionary sanctions notice concerning the Arab-Israeli confllict

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.

Doug Weller talk 09:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Warning over edit warring in ARBPIA articles

You have already been warned several times, including by Doug Weller only two days ago, for your editing at sensible article covered by WP:ARBPIA. Against that background in particular, this edit [12] is very problematic. While violating WP:BRD is never a good idea, doing so at WP:ARBPIA-covered articles is especially serious. If there is opposition to something you want to add, the proper procedure is to first take it to talk to gain a consensus, not just adding it back in. Unless your edit pattern at sensible articles change, you are soon likely to be blocked. Kindly self-revert this improper edit. Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: I'm sorry that you found my edits to be unhelpful and felt the need to warn me over them. I will try and bring the issue to the talk page if you still aren't convinced by the end of this message. However, I believe that there may have been a series of misunderstandings which I will address below.

First of all, while I'm not certain of Doug's intents, I'll be surprised if they made the warnings because they thought my editing may have been harmful, as, before this point, I did not make any edits which could possibly be interpreted as reverts. Even though I do have a history of blocks, I have dialed down my editing strategy significantly since my last block and haven't engaged in an edit war - even a minor one - since.

Secondly, I do not believe that I was edit-warring here - nor that I had violated WP:BRD; to quote from the BRD page, "to avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns". Since bringing an issue to the talk page after each edit is inefficient, my current strategy is to make a new edit that I believe addresses the reverter's concerns and see if it sticks; if it doesn't, I am sure to bring the issue to the talk page, as I have explained above. Indeed, I did not simply reinstate my old edit, as seems to be your impression, but instead changed the placement of the statement that I added in the first edit to make it read less trivially, which was your initial criticism. Believe it or not, this strategy has worked very well for me in the past couple of months, and this is in fact only the second time that my new edit didn't stick in that time.

For these reasons, I fail to see how a self-revert is appropriate in this situation. If you don't agree with my new edit, which you don't seem to at the moment, feel free to revert it. That said, before you do, please read the argument that I will present below:

As it stands, the article Israel comments on the country's GDP and standard of living compared to other Middle East countries; however, it doesn't give any indication of the country's economic efficiency (which could be measured, for example, by GDP per capita), nor its standard of living (commonly measured by the HDI) on the global scale. My edit aims to summarise both given Israel's political situation. Alternatively, simple statements of GDP per capita and HDI could be added, but, in my opinion, these fail to factor in Israel's military spendings resulting from political tensions, and hence do not give an adequate representation of the aforementioned parameters (economic efficiency and standard of living).

Hopefully, you understand my point of view. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 17:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Edits reverted at Language

Hello, Oldstone James. I reverted your recent edits to the article Language. Your edits changed the definition of language used in the article. I think that such a sweeping change warrants discussion before being undertaken. Please feel welcome to comment at Talk:Language#Definition of 'Language' as you see fit. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. I see that you have restored the edits I reverted. I also read your message on the talk page, but have not had time to reply. You link to an essay, WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I did have specific reasons to revert your edits, though, related to the five archived discussions I linked from that talk page section. I believe this is a usual practice, sometimes called the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. As I am currently grading a stack of essays, though, I probably will not have time to comment more specifically. I'll flag the discussion at the relevant WikiProjects and see if anyone else comments. Sorry for not responding more substantively at the moment. Cnilep (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine; I just didn't see any contradiction between my version and conclusions of the previous discussions. You're not required to participate in the discussion as long as you don't make edits to the page, which you haven't done since your original revert. The discussion seems to have revived, so we should be able to reach a consensus in the near future.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi

I noticed that you have started editing articles that are, broadly construed, related to creationism. E.g. [13],[14], and [15]. I don't have any problems with these edits myself, but so you are aware if you are under a topic ban restriction you could end up blocked for such edits.

jps (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh crap, forgot I still have it. Thanks for reminding me. I should probably appeal to get it lifted. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

AN appeal

Hi OJ (I hope that you don't mind the abbreviation)...

I've seen the topic ban appeal at AN. I suspect you know it's very unlikely to succeed. The way you wrote the appeal initially comes across as you strongly believing the ban was a great injustice that needs correcting – whether that was your intent is largely irrelevant – and that your actions since were covered largely as an afterthought. That will put many potential supporters off side. I'm not saying that you must change your views but the approach is poor for the outcome you seek. In general, if you want to ask for something, irritating, upsetting, or offending those you ask is a poor strategy. If you were writing a new appeal, I would suggest thinking about your audience, who will mostly start from the assumption that there was a reason for the ban and look to be persuaded that it is no longer necessary. You appear to be arguing that it is not necessary because it never was, which directs attention to your actions before the ban rather than to those since – that's not to your benefit. If I were in your place and held the views of the ban that you seem to, I would have posted something like:

1. A brief introduction stating what the ban was for, when it was imposed, and by whom (with convenience links, both to be helpful and so that there is no impression that you are hiding the history).

   In MONTH, YEAR, I was involved in discussions and an editing dispute at THIS / THESE WIKILINKED PAGES. During the disagreement, I violated policies on edit warring (or whatever) and the talk page discussions became heated and were seen as tendentious (or whatever). The situation was brought to ANI here (wikilinked) and I was topic banned (link to user talk notification) from WHATEVER by WHOEVER based on a community consensus. I now wish to appeal this topic ban.

2. You need not accept that the decision(s) were right, but admitting to the parts you do agree with is helpful.

   I recognise that my edit warring in article space was wrong and said so here (link). I undertook not to make that mistake again here (link) and I have not done so since that time. I am following the advice given by WHOEVER here (link) of no more than one revert before starting an article talk page discussion. Examples from my recent editing include (links, etc).

3. Disputing what you don't think was fair should be brief and forward-looking, with a focus on what you have contributed since then to give a reason to support you for those who did see the ban as necessary.

   In fact, my statements here and here (links) from before the ban was imposed show that I had already modified my approach before the ban was imposed, which is why I think it was unfair. This led me to making some forceful comments after it was imposed (links) and I requested a block of TIME (link) to gain some space and perspective. I remain of the view that the ban was not needed to prevent disruption and its injustice does still upsety / irritate me. However, one thing I learned at the time from comments (link) by WHOEVER was that there are times to accept that consensus does not support my view or that it is time to step away from an area where it would not be productive to persist. Examples include (with links).
   When I returned XXX months / years ago, I decided that the best way forward was to prove by my actions that the ban was no longer necessary. I would like to highlight my actions in articles XXX, YYY, and ZZZ and talk discussions PPP, QQQ, and RRR (all with links), which show EXPLANATIONS that are different from the approach I took in the original dispute. These are consistent with the undertakings I made here (links) and advice I have received here (links). I submit that they show that, even if you believe that the ban was needed then (about which I disagree), it is not needed now as my behaviour and actions have demonstrably improved since those that I regret from the original dispute.

4. You will be asked about why you want the ban lifted and what you would do in the area. Admitting to any errors on the ban is far better than others finding them.

   I feel that the topic ban is a mark of shame that I should not need to carry. I believe that I am contributing to Wikipedia constructively (other examples different from above if necessary, maybe highlighting the amount of contributions / areas edited since the ban was imposed) and deserve not to have any doubts that I am an editor in good standing in the community. In regard to the XXX topic area, I admit to strong views but remain dedicated to the use of reliable sources in support of neutral content and even if I do make a problematic edit, I will stick to 1RR and engage in talk page discussion so the encyclopaedic content is protected. I will be mindful that I need to respect consensus and will consider any civil feedback that I might be misinterpreting a source or misunderstanding in some way (for example). I will assume good faith in discussions and disengage or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring over content or tendentiously arguing on article talk pages. Even if you are not convinced that my ban is no longer needed, I ask to be allowed some WP:ROPE to help to convince you.
   I am also asking for the ban to be ended as my editing follows my interests in an eclectic way. Recently, I was editing about XXX because I had become interested in the topic, which led me to YYY and then ZZZ and then making some minor changes (a grammar correction, another grammar correction plus the removal of an unsourced statement, and a talk page comment) that are within the area of the broadly construed topic ban. I was reminded by jps, which I appreciated as I do not wish to be sanctioned for edits that are clearly supported by policy due to an oversight on my part. I hope that these edits will not be taken as a reason to continue my ban.

5. A concluding statement should be positive. If you do choose to ping / notify people, be neutral – either only those you must (like the admin imposing the ban) or everyone involved in the previous discussion.

   Thank you for reading my appeal. I hope that my editing since it was imposed demonstrate my positive contributions to Wikipedia and that I am not a threat to the integrity or content of the encyclopaedia. I will notify XXX, who imposed the topic ban, and also those who contributed to earlier discussions (pings, etc) and am happy to answer any questions you might have.

Your replies to jps in the AN discussion are the other area that will likely kill your present appeal. I infer that you feel that he has attacked you and is being unfair, but you need to know that the posts come across as someone who wants to right great wrongs and will struggle to interact appropriately in an already contentious area. Jps has plenty of experience at WP, including as an editor sanctioned for problematic behaviours. He is also highly respected by many in the community, both as a scholar and as someone deeply committed to the integrity of materials in fringe areas. When you come to appeal your ban again (and I hope you will), you are going to need to address what you've said to him. FYI, I don't read his comments as attacking you but rather as raising legitimate concerns. He gave you an opportunity to address those concerns for both him and for other readers at AN. Unfortunately, you have reacted in a way that appears defensive, that suggests you haven't understood the concerns he was raising, and ultimately with a post that I am sure reflects your pain and disappointment but which will be taken by many as immaturity.

Obviously, all of the above needs to be modified to fit the facts (I could easily have some wrong) and also to fit your style and beliefs. I'm not at all saying that an appeal must be like this, but rather suggesting how what you appear to want to communicate can be done in a way that better fits your objective. You don't have to accept that the ban should have been imposed, but you do need to accept that others will start from assuming tat it was needed. Focus on what you have done to convince people that it isn't needed now, rather than that it wasn't needed then, because now is what is most convincing about the future, which is what lifting a ban is about.

Finally, please accept that this advice (which you are free to accept in full, in part, or ignore, of course) is meant to help you to achieve your goal. I'm not taking a position on the imposition of the ban because it is a fact that it happened. Taking a new decision that something is not needed now is much easier than arguing that it never was needed. I hope you continue to edit after the appeal is denied and that you can be more successful next time. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes, I guess it was once again a subtle case of digging a hole (or whatever it is called), as by denying that the topic ban should have been imposed, I was implicitly attacking the voters' views on the issue. Either way, I knew that it wouldn't really help my chances of getting the topic ban lifted, but I did place my hope in the community that they would at least be able to read the entire proposal and evaluate the situation, but it seems like only two editors (Foxnpichu and, much to my surprise, Guy Macon) ended up doing that; others, like Guy and Grandpallama unfortunately appeared to stop at the first sentence. Although I think you warned me even last time that first impression is very important in situations like this one, so I probably should've known better. Also, I think your format would've achieved my goal of explaining why a topic ban wasn't necessary in the first place without undermining chances of getting unbanned significantly, so I agree that I should've probably thought a bit more about it before posting. jps actually suggested doing something similar to what you have proposed (without that much detail, of course). It's just that I didn't want to spend any time on it (ha!), so I just copied and pasted this 9-month-old comment and kind of assumed that people would just agree to unban me as per WP:ROPE (as people did in the AN section below my appeal, even though the original proposal was literally just "can you unban me, please", without any additional input) and that would be it. Needless to say, I was wrong. Anyway, thanks a lot for this template. I think I will use it for my next appeal, if I ever bother to make it.

As to my discussion with jps, notice how I haven't attacked him, his editing, or anything about him in any way. I simply disagreed with him, noting that I respect his opinions, but that my opinions simply differ from his, and I do believe that I addressed at least my interpretation of his concerns. To be really honest, I don't even know what would've been the appropriate response to his accusations or concerns. I understand that his intentions were only good, and I do appreciate that, but I still feel that I have the right to disagree and express my opinions. For example, I appreciate that jps is of the opinion that I struggle to evaluate what is mainstream and what is not. That said, I don't necessarily agree with this point of view, which is why my response to him expressing this opinion was pretty much "you are free to believe that". Let's take another, very similar example, but this time I was accusing jps. This conversation took place a year ago. I pretty much made exactly the same mistake as he did, which is failing to understand that not only do views on whether the consensus is correct differ, but also what consensus even is, and proposed that "when it comes to correcting grammar, don't correct something that you aren't 100% certain is false". As with jps in the previous case, my intention was purely to help. jps's initial response was relatively calm, but he did later comment that "perhaps not everyone would have taken as kindly as I did to the level of belligerence" and that "there are people on this site that would feel justified in lashing out violently if you told them [this]". I think you see what I mean now. I'm not the only who finds opinion-based accusations aggressive and feels justified in not even lashing out, as jps says, but simply being able to disagree. I understand that you might have reacted in a more neutral way, but that's you, and I'm me. Just because you would've reacted better doesn't mean that I reacted wrongly.

And yes, with that last edit, I just gave up. It was mostly just a bit of humour (yeah, my sense of humour is odd).

Sorry if you feel like I'm being defensive again in this comment. I honestly still appreciate greatly your desire to help, and your opinions are very valuable to me. But usually, when I appear to get defensive, I'm just genuinely confused. That just means that I have no idea what is going through my interlocutor's head, and I struggle severely to connect with their way of thinking. In this case, I'm confused as to why jps thinks that my opinions are too firm (perhaps an example would help) and that I my "scholarship" is "peculiar", by which I think he means "my ideas are often on the fringe". Perhaps he still believes that I'm not being genuine when I say that I'm a centrist atheist and that I'm in fact a well-meaning far-right agenda pusher? This would seemingly explain a large chunk of my edits, from my condoning of what he believes to be scientific racism, to my tendentiousness on trying to loosen the manacles on creationism, to even my edits on Carl Benjamin (which, upon further research, I realised were factually incorrect). Might this be it? If you have any insight, please let me know, because I am genuinely interested in both making myself a better editor and understanding other people's point of view. However, you don't have to reply, I'm already thanking for your original post. Thanks a lot! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

jps discussion (cont.)

I'm not sure to what end this is useful, but I am going to try to be as succinct and blunt as I can to explain what the problem is.

First of all, read WP:JURY. I think that's one of the places you went astray in your request.

Secondly, you still haven't really understood where I'm coming from with my concerns and you continue to impart motives onto my commentary which I simply do not have. I am going to outline them below in a (perhaps vain) hope that you might come to understand what I'm saying because, and I guess I'll bold this because the message does not seem to be gettin through, I really do think you have the potential to be a valuable contributor on creationism pages. But the defensive combativeness and the jejune attempts at humor which seem to indicate a tendency to over-personalize disputes continue to give me pause. I think this is where the problem is. You've taken offense to what I'm saying and therefore seem to have a cognitive filter in place in terms of understanding what my concerns are in the first place.

So, let me quote from your "wall of text", as you put it, to see if I can't make one last ditch effort to get through to you.

it seems like your point was that I couldn't evaluate what is mainstream and what is not; to which I replied "we all have our opinions as to what constitutes as mainstream; my valuation, in this instance, differs from yours, but, in my opinion, that isn't reason enough for you to !vote 'oppose', although you are free to !vote whichever way you please". I do indeed question whether you are doing a good job evaluating a body of literature and scholarship, but I am not concerned that you disagree. What I'm concerned about is that you have not been able to articulate any theory of mind as to why I might have a different opinion from you in the first place. Let me be clear again: you do not have to agree with my position. But you have to be able to understand it or at least put on airs as though you can pretend to understand it. So far, all I see is a stubborn refusal to do anything more than agree to disagree. Agreeing to disagree should be the last step in a discussion. If you start from that premise, there is no way we can collaborate which is a problem on a website that functions on the basis of collaboration.

You have also criticised my scholarship as peculiar, by which I think you mean not mainstream. However, this links directly to the point that I just made. Of course I understand why you would think that - because not all people have the same opinions, as I have explained - but, in my opinion, this by itself does not necessarily render my scholarship peculiar. For my scholarship to really be "peculiar" - or, in more rigorous terms, fringe - it needs to lack evidence from reliable sources, which it doesn't almost by definition, as my opinion on almost all topics defaults to the opinion which is best supported by available evidence. You are getting a little closer to being able to explain what I'm arguing here, I think, but it's still so laden with the "we disagree!" rhetoric that it's hard to see if you really do understand my critique. You are arguing that your approach is to adopt an opinion. Already this is a peculiar approach given WP:NPOV. Scholarship on Wikipedia should not be about adopting an opinion. It should rather be about paying the most attention to the best sources. This is a subtle but important distinction and it speaks directly to why your approach is peculiar. What adopting opinions tends to mean is that you may have a tendency to personalize an editorial dispute which may lead to problems in understanding what exactly the critique of your particular point actually is.

And, as to defensiveness, consider this: not only have I already conceded that I am pretty defensive by myself, and a Wikipedia ban will not change this, but I don't even think it's a bad quality for a Wikipedia editor to have. On the contrary, there have been many occasions where, through stubbornness and "defensiveness", I have been able to get my way and actually improve the article (the AiG page is one example). This is going to be a problem, I promise. Stubborn and reactionary responses like that turn Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Whether you "win" or not is ultimately irrelevant because it takes up too much oxygen in the discussion. I also don't think you've "won" as much as you may think you have. The AiG article does not conform to what I saw you arguing for in the past, and to the extent it does, I think it's only because the consensus agreed with you. Where the consensus disagreed, the article does not reflect your approach.

Now, it seems like you disagree, but that's fine: as I said, our opinions will differ, but I don't think that really warrants a topic ban. Here you seem to be arguing that I am in favor of the topic ban. But I did not say I was in the discussion. So why do you think that this is my opinion?

You are accusing me of holding fringe views and not willing to change my mind about them, which is already pretty offensive to me, because I my approach is pretty much the opposite: align my position with that of the scholarly community, but always be able to change it if it is shown that I have misinterpreted this position. Here's the bug: if you come to interpret certain aspects of the scholarly community through a problematic lens, your approach will end up propping up fringe views. I have seen this happen a lot on this website. People who are convinced their approach is magnanimous and "aligned" tend to fall into traps in seeing only the evidence that confirms their particular take. The issue is not with the mechanics of forming your opinion, the issue is with not being self-reflective enough to understand that it is impossible for any one individual to be an efficient interpreter of the literature. Otherwise, you end up seeing evidence for the global flood in every rock. (That's a metaphor for what I think may be going on here, please don't think that I'm accusing you of being a young Earth creationist.)

You are then accusing me of not being able to edit on behalf of the other party's point of view in a discussion of a topic ban that I earned by doing exactly that. No. I'm saying that you haven't demonstrated that you understand my critique. I don't think you understand why I'm concerned.

You are additionally subtly implying that all of the above is partly the result of a lack of competence to read in a "non-facile" manner. It feels this way, perhaps, because ultimately our interaction is entirely textual and we are talking about interpretation vis-a-vis reading/writing. I do worry about whether you can function in a contentious environment, but the way you prove otherwise is by actually functioning differently. Taking offense and lashing out just provides more evidence to the contrary.

And you are using all of this to support a topic ban which should not in a million years have been imposed. Am I? I am expressing real concern about your abilities to function in contentious environments at this website. You are engaging in histrionic exaggeration about the onerousness of being sanctioned at this particular website. If you want to demonstrate that it is not an issue, you can certainly go edit creationism content on a variety of other Wikimedia sites. You can go to non-Wikimedia sites and work on creationism. You can do any number of other things which don't require the diplomatic chops I think you haven't yet developed for engaging in the English-language Wikipedia environment surrounding these subjects.

Tell me you would not get at least a little bit defensive in this situation. I won't tell you that because I would feel as you are feeling. That's part of the way this place works. I work all the time on trying to rise above this WP:MASTADON tendency in myself. I'm asking that you try to do the same.

I am just genuinely confused as to why you'd want me to stay away from creationism-related articles specifically, or from any articles for that matter. Even if you believe that I'm an incompetent, narrow-minded, insufferable fringe-pov pusher, how would that be a problem if I stop at the first revert of my edits? It would be a problem because it's not the adherence to the superficial rules that is my concern. Rather, it is the ability to collaborate that I am worried about.

And why does it have to be creationism-related articles of all topics? Because that's a contentious and historically fraught topic. We've had arbitrations over the subject and there are discretionary sanctions for a reason. The task is not for everybody. It might be for you, but if you cannot understand what I'm saying, it's going to be tiresome.

I just spent 15 minutes composing this response. That's a lot of time to devote to a back-and-forth, but I'm doing so because I am holding out hope that there might be a way to break through the armor and get a good editor out of this. You aren't the first editor I have tried to go to bat for in this way, and others may call me naive for doing so (the ones !voting "oppose", for example). But I think I see something here that can be useful and I'm just hopeful that you can develop that bit of your personality so that the topic ban lifting becomes a slam dunk.

jps (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Okay, thanks a lot for your comment. I think it explains a lot. Let me address your points one by one:

A case of WP:JURY: yes, I agree. In my reply to EdChem, I called this "digging a hole", but I think this is what I meant. You'll find my reasons for such an approach in that same reply. Notice how I said "reasons" and not "justifications", so please don't mistake this for me not being able to admit my shortcomings.

I still haven't understood where you're coming from: based on what you've written in this comment, it seems like both of us are seriously confused about the other party's thought process, me perhaps being the bigger offender. Don't take this as a criticism - perhaps I should've explained my position more clearly. But it is true that I didn't have a clue why you were saying what you were saying and what your motivations were. I think this comment provides a bit of insight into that. I don't think there is a cognitive filter, because I genuinely tried to understand your thought process, but the comments just kept getting more and more bizarre. Thanks for writing the part in bold, because the message that I got from your earlier comments is that you think of me as a really stubborn, intransigent fringe pov pusher, for which the only hope is that they can at least realise that their views are fringe. But, thankfully, that doesn't seem to be your image of me, based on this comment.

I don't have a theory of mind as to your judgement of my source evaluation abilities Well, I do, but it might not be correct. So far, my understanding is that you believe that I am not capable of evaluating professional sources because you are convinced that your evaluation is correct, not least because other experienced editors have supported this evaluation. In my opinion, this is a mistake, one which I've also fallen victim to in the past (remember that debate about definite articles that we held last year?), but I certainly understand why you'd think that - as I said, I made similar mistakes in the past myself. Otherwise, I indeed am not really sure, but I'm trying to understand. If what I have described above is not the reason, can you very briefly state your motivations for arriving at such a conclusion? If you simply have doubts about my competence, I can tell you that, at university, part of my degree involves evaluating professional sources, and so far I've gotten the highest marks in such modules. So I don't think competence is an issue here. You also mention my approach which starts with the premise that we should "agree to disagree". Rest assured that this is NEVER my premise. This is in fact one of the phrases that I hate the most, because what this phrase means in the majority of cases is that both myself and my interlocutor have learnt nothing from the discussion. I think this is actually one example of where you have misinterpreted my reasoning: I didn't just say that we should agree to disagree because I did not share your opinions; I said that because I thought that your very objection was based on the fact that you don't agree with my opinions, as I have described above. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. In reality, I'm more than open for others to point out my weaknesses and to prove me wrong. In fact, most often I try and do that myself, because this way I can actually improve myself as an editor/person/whatever else, and life simply becomes easier this way.

My approach is to adopt an opinion Of course, everything is an opinion. Forgive me for redirecting the blame here a little bit, but I think that's where we part ways and where most of our disagreement stems from. You seem to think that your evaluation of the sources is not an opinion but a simple recital of the contents of these sources, and hence that this valuation is not prone to any subjectivity. While I understand the logic behind this approach, that is not the full story. In fact, your valuation and my valuation of sources on the same subject may both be completely systematic, and both may end up polar opposites of each other. For example, you may have missed some important sources, I may have misinterpreted some other sources, etc. The fact that our valuations differ does not mean that one of us is really bad at interpreting sources and the other one is really good at it - it just means that we are both human and are both bound to make errors. A great example of this phenomenon in my opinion is your judgement of scientific consensus on the topic of race and intelligence: you have deemed that the consensus is that there is no connection between (self-identified or by ethnic divisions) race and intelligence and have suggested that my valuation that there is is part of scientific realism and is hence a fringe view. However, it seems like not only is the consensus (as per sources cited by Cherio222) that there is indeed such a connection, but that the view that this connection is explained at least in part by genetics is not even fringe. I hope that you understand my position and can see where I am coming from.

AiG contributions In fact, my only quibbles with the lede were 1) that the tone was not encyclopedic and 2) that it was not previously stated that AiG's rejection of scientific investigation was part of their dogma, and it instead seemed like the article was simply being salty at the organisation. Both of those issues have since been resolved AGAINST the preliminary consensus, as almost everyone initially protested against the introduction of the clause "out of biblical inerrancy".

I feel that your other comments are quite minor, and I agree with most of them, anyway. My post is already getting really long, but I really hope that you read it. I don't expect you to respond to everything, but I do think it would help my development if you could formulate your position on the most important topics. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Three things:

So far, my understanding is that you believe that I am not capable of evaluating professional sources because you are convinced that your evaluation is correct, not least because other experienced editors have supported this evaluation. Thanks for articulating what you think I am saying and your theory of mind in this matter. Now, let me offer my reply that this is not what I think. What I think is going on is that you make judgments about sources that may appear at first to be correct to a variety of people, but upon more careful analysis the way they are described, analyzed, and evaluated requires a level of care and delicacy to be explained accurately and fully. In controversial articles at Wikipedia, getting the precise wording correct is extremely difficult. This is where I think you enter into what I've described as "peculiar scholarship", you seem to typically get stuck in a thought process where you think your analysis has a clarity that is unimpeachable when in fact it may be misleading to our readers for one reason or another. To me it seems that once you've made your mind up as to an interpretation of sources, it is very difficult for you to see where the problems in offering such an interpretation may lie. Given your WP:Wikidragon tendencies, this leads quickly to conflict.

You seem to think that your evaluation of the sources is not an opinion but a simple recital of the contents of these sources, and hence that this valuation is not prone to any subjectivity. While I understand the logic behind this approach, that is not the full story. In fact, your valuation and my valuation of sources on the same subject may both be completely systematic, and both may end up polar opposites of each other. Here again I will explain that all editors have an opinion so it is important to set those aside when editing. Opinions exist. Whether we use them to drive our editorial philosophies or not is the question. The next point is telling in this regard:

you have deemed that the consensus is that there is no connection between (self-identified or by ethnic divisions) race and intelligence and have suggested that my valuation that there is is part of scientific realism and is hence a fringe view. However, it seems like not only is the consensus (as per sources cited by Cherio222) that there is indeed such a connection, but that the view that this connection is explained at least in part by genetics is not even fringe. I hope that you understand my position and can see where I am coming from. You are definitely adopting or at best accommodating a fringe view here either wittingly or unwittingly. If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt, I would say you have been hoodwinked by a typical rhetorical argument by editors (some of whom are undoubtably sockpuppets of banned users) who continue to plague the race and intelligence pages. You can and should read more about this in the archived arbitration cases about this subject linked at the top of relevant talkpages. As white supremacists have tried to dominate the conversation about "race and intelligence", they skew the subject in hopes of gaining editorial recruits like yourself. You've been duped. Just so you are aware, I very rarely involve myself in the ongoing disputes on those pages, but I will offer here that discussions of genetics and intelligence in today's political environment run headlong into a rhetorical history of white supremacy replete with very bad actors and propaganda tricks that, sadly, I think you may have bought hook, line, and sinker. You can get a sense for this by reading a book such as The Mismeasure of Man by the late, great Stephen J. Gould. So, yes, I judge that you have amalgamated fringe and mainstream sources into an intransigent editorial bent that intelligence is inherited and based on race -- which is scientific racism. If you keep going down this road to argue in favor of this position as "mainstream", you will find your going difficult. So this is a good object lesson, indeed.

jps (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

1) Hmm... I'm not sure. You seem convinced that I am totally intransigent and have serious difficulties with admitting to being wrong about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that this is really what it all comes down to. You seem to have held this view ever since I first encountered you. Honestly, I am still not sure what made you think that; I guess a more concrete example may help here. What I find even more puzzling is that you state that I "think your analysis has a clarity that is unimpeachable". It may just be a case of misunderstanding, but haven't I already conceded that "my evaluation of sources" is just "an opinion" and that we're "all human and all bound to make errors"? Or do you mean that, even if I may say that I am bound to make errors, I don't actually admit to making any errors in reality and am not being genuine with myself? I think this option is more likely, but it would still be quite strange, given the number of occasions where I had admitted to being wrong, including in cases where you were involved (e.g. the indefinite article discussion, the format of my proposal, being defensive, etc). Either way, whatever it may be, if your primary issue with me is that you don't think that I'm ready to change my stance on a given topic, then the solution is simple: you give me a concrete example of where I am not willing to concede being wrong despite the evidence and I will see whether I agree or not. However, even if turns out that I was wrong, that in itself does not automatically imply that I'm bad at determining the scholarly consensus; it just means that I'm human and that I make mistakes. I think not overgeneralising in cases like these is important, because the alternative may end up sounding aggressive and pretentious, as you yourself once pointed out with a slightly different phrasing. I may have gotten defensive in our earlier convo, but an easy way to avoid people getting defensive is to have a more conservative approach yourself. You know, I've got things to learn, and you've got things to learn. I certainly need to stay calmer in certain situations, but you also need to be less judgemental and conceited in your approach, at least with me. And by that I don't mean that you're generally conceited or judgemental, but instead that you may have misjudged the situation on this particular occasion and that's why you come across in this way, at least to me. I'm not saying this out of spite, but I think that our collaboration will be a lot more meaningful if I stop being defensive and you stop overgeneralising, because I think that's the goal of our very conversation.

2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying here. Let me get right down to epistemology to make my point clearer: it is impossible to know anything unconditional about the physical world, or whether it even exists. Therefore, any statement that we make about the physical world is just our opinion. This includes our evaluation of scholarly consensus. If something is an "opinion", that does not mean that it is affected by some inherent bias or that it hasn't been constructed systematically - it just means that it's subjective. In this case, both of our valuations may be completely systematic and free of inherent bias, and yet both may end up on opposite extremes of the spectrum. Therefore, it is impossible for our editing philosophy not to be influenced by our opinions, simply because our editing philosophy IS an opinion, as is any other statement that we make about physical reality, if we are being really rigorous. In my opinion, your failure to realise this may be the main driver of your apparent conceitedness, if you aren't really conceited at all. A similar issue might actually be at play in my case, too: perhaps, I appear high-handed because of a fallacious aspect of my approach, even if that's not really the case whatsoever (I know what's going on inside my thoughts; it's not).

3) Hmmm again. I think I'm starting to see a pattern: you seem to overgeneralise a lot. It may actually be the case that our entire convo is a product of these two issues: my defensiveness and your tendency to overgeneralise. I think that, if we both tried to eliminate these two traits of ours, we'd get along perfectly well (although it may still be the case that there's another weakness in my approach that causes me to appear high-handed, which I've described above - but I won't know it until you point it out to me). In this case, consider that just the fact that some people may not share your opinions (yes, opinions, as explained above) on a given race-related subject does not mean that they are white supremacists. And, as to the rest of your comment, no, I haven't been duped: in fact, I didn't even know about the users in question until two days ago. Instead, I have based my opinions on reliable sources which I have evaluated by myself. NOTE: as I have stated many times before, and as you can actually find on my very user page, I do NOT hold the position that mainstream science agrees that intellectual differences between ethnicities are caused by genetics. Instead, my position is that these differences exist, and that mainstream science does not rule out the possibility of a genetic factor, as the lede currently states, and additionally that such a view is not on the fringe. Funnily enough, even the book that you have mentioned, The Mismeasure of Man, concedes that intellectual differences exist between ethnicities. It seems like my position is pretty much as unanimous as it gets in the scientific community. I'm not sure why you're trying to debate that, but I'll assume good faith and conclude that this was just a case of misunderstanding, because it would otherwise be a case of WP:COI and tendentiousness, which I refuse to believe about you. Either way, if you disagree, you should provide at least one reliable source which disagrees with this position. For all the disagreement that I've encountered from Wikipedia editors, not a single source has been provided that disputes the existence of ethnic intellectual differences; and at least 20 sources have been provided in the other direction.

4) Lastly, I will note that you have now started edit-warring without consensus on a contentious article. Especially given the nature of our discussion, I don't think that this was the wisest thing to do. I strongly suggest that you self-revert and bring the issue to the talk page if you don't want to start another massive feud on a contentious topic. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I tried. You keep going down this road, misinterpreting me, ignoring the advice of people who have a lot more experience than you, and acting instead a general nuisance like you are currently doing, I predict not only will your topic ban not be lifted, it may even be extended. Good luck! jps (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that you've reacted in this way, it doesn't seem like you really tried. It seems like you're just being resentful at the first hint of a criticism on my part. I showed real desire to improve and make our collaboration more efficient, admitted my weaknesses, and overall tried to be as respectful to you as I could. And none of this warranted anything more than being called "a nuisance", according to you. Oh, well. But, you know what, now that this discussion is over, I just want to say: at the end of the day, both of us are probably a net positive for Wikipedia as a project, so regardless of what you may think of me or what I may think of you, we still have to respect each other as editors - and I don't even say that because I think that deserve any respect but because I think that we are working on the same team, the Wikipedia team, and it will just be worse for the project if we don't do that. So let's just move on from this conversation, appreciating the fact that different people have different opinions and different weaknesses, and get on with our common goal of, literally, making the world a better and more convenient place to live in, without any hard feelings. Good luck (I mean it)! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you really sure?

Are you sure you want to be site-banned? I know you probably said that on impulse due to feeling victimised, but I feel you have potential to contribute greatly. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your kind words. I also appreciate your effort to evaluate the situation, instead of just reading the first sentence and making a judgment out of that. To be honest, I was just making a silly joke. But if I do get site-banned, that will be the community's judgement. After all, Wikipedia is the community, and the community's judgement is what makes up all content on Wikipedia. So if it is ruled that I am to be site-banned, well, too bad, that's just how Wikipedia works. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 14:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude, but making silly jokes is often a bad idea. It can be difficult to determine whether something is a joke or serious, and sometimes people can take what you say a different way as you intended. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

True this. I guess I just gave up at that moment. But you're right. I better be careful. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I have closed your topic ban appeal on WP:AN per WP:SNOW. The ban remains in place. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SNOW? Does that mean that you think my initial proposal had no chance of being accepted? Interesting... ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

More so that it became SNOW shortly after the initial appeal. Your appeal for an WP:UNBAN was primarily that you felt the initial ban was unfair (see WP:APPEAL for more about that approach). Consensus was on a clear trajectory, as you noted yourself. Moreover, your behavior in the discussion was not in your own best interest and, in my view, turned this into a SNOW case (i.e., there's no reason to further continue the bureaucracy when the outcome is readily apparent). In any case, I hope you continue to edit in the areas you have been. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 00:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pings and notifications

Just to let you know, 'ping' is generally used as shorthand for notifying someone via a talk page (or edit summary) mention mw:Help:Notifications/Types#Mentions. It does not matter whether and what template you use. So if someone asks you not to ping them, you should not wikilink their username in any replies, including using templates that do so nor wikilink their username in your edit summary, as that will normally cause a notification. While there are ways to avoid notifying someone from talk page mentions, such as not signing your post in your first edit, then signing it and doing nothing else in your next, there is also a template {{No ping}} which can be used. But you should also consider whether it's really needed to wikilink someone's name. For example, in this case [16] it seems fairly superfluous since Grayfell was already an active participant in that thread so there would be no doubt who you were referring to and likewise people could easily find a link to their user page if they needed one. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Will take it into account. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 20:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't ping me like you just did on Talk:Race and intelligence. It is rude. jps (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I've proposed expanding your topic ban at WP:AN

You can comment there. It is a subsection of the previous conversation. jps (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Oldstone_James reported by User:Grayfell (Result: ). Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

I was afraid my grandstand was going to be completely in vain. At least the fact I am not alone is some sort of vindication. What a terrible way of working together... sucks all the fun out of Wikipedia :( --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's true. But things like this happen sometimes. I think what you need to do in situations such as this one, for your own benefit, is just move on to some other topic where your edits are likely to be accepted. Now, I have struggled to do this in the past, but I am confident that you will save both energy and time if you proceed with this course of action. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That's good advice, —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Would have dropped it but the user started blatantly hounding my other contributions. FYI I've mentioned your support for my previous report here [17]. This has to stop. It's unacceptable. Never seen anything like it and impunity will just reinforce it. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it does to have to stop, but it won't. I don't think jps will be sanctioned, because he is already pretty well-known on Wikipedia as an "experienced editor" (which practically means that he is [almost] sanction-proof) and is on good terms with a few admins (including Bishonen, who blocked you). It's a bit of an unfortunate block that you received there, as it seems like the blocking admin simply failed to read into the situation when they accused of you of forum-shopping, and, quite frankly, I don't see what purpose this block was trying to fulfil, but seeing as your editing has been labelled as "disruptive" by an admin, it's probably true that it's not ideal. I know that you can't always fix everything, but if you listen to what Bishonen has to say about your editing and try to improve it based on this feedback, I'm sure that you will have more support from other editors (I say this from personal experience). I guess that this is the only thing that you can do at this point. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 18:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. jps (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AE

I think you've gotta move on from R&I. I've proposed a topic ban for you here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Oldstone_James.

jps (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Race and intelligence

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I haven't violated any bright-line rules such as WP:3RR or the WP:1RR restriction since it's been imposed (I've made 1 revert since it was imposed). Furthermore, each of the reverts that jps has linked were reverts of different edits and each respected WP:BRD, except for this one, which re-reverted a clear case of misunderstanding, as the basis for the original revert was that "content was inadvertantly restored to the article", although the content was in fact added intentionally. Besides, a large number of editors have made a comparable number of reverts in the past week as myself, including user:Onetwothreeip, user:Flyer22 Frozen, user:Dlthewave, and others, and they haven't even been warned (and I don't believe they should be warned, as reverting edits is permitted as long as these reversions don't turn into an edit-war). Even if my block appeal is rejected, I would really love to hear in what way I can improve my editing and what I have done wrong, as, right now, my understanding is that reverting multiple edits that had been made without consensus is acceptable and, furthermore, encouraged, as long as these reversions don't turn into an edit-war; one way to make sure that edit-warring isn't initiated is following the WP:BRD cycle, which I have for the most part done. Is this understanding false? Regards, James. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

One can be disruptively editing or edit warring without breaking a bright-line rule. Talking about the editors in your appeal isn't recommended --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Oldstone James, I feel that it's time for you to take a break from the Race and intelligence article mainspace and focus, instead, on dispute resolution and accompanying requests on the article talk page (which, again, you are not blocked from editing). Best regards, El_C 19:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fair, but why was my editing not appropriate? Besides, I think we've made a fair bit of progress over the past few days, together with users like Onetwothreeip and Dlthewave, so I think we were moving in the right direction. If I were completely honest, I'd say that I still don't completely understand the motive behind this block. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James, the partial block result is how I concluded my evaluation of the AN3 report filed about you. El_C 20:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure this helps, but I understand that you're busy, so thank you for taking the time making at least the comments that you already have made. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)James, a word from the wise. To not get blocked in the first place, don't edit war. To get unblocked you have to grovel. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A word from the wise? Hmm, how humble of you (just kidding, I know you meant "to the wise"). Anyway, I don't think I was actually edit-warring, and I think you will agree if you take a look at the edits that I actually made. And, if you don't agree, please tell me in what way they constitute edit-warring, as I would very happy to learn about ways to improve my editing efficiency and reduce chances of getting in trouble in the future. As a side note, is this comment in light of your recent edit-warring block or in spite of it? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In the light of my recent block, yes; and previous ones. I saw the AN3 report as evaluated above by El C. Grovelling works usually, but you have to really work at it. I don't think you've got it in you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that's great to hear. Hopefully, you won't edit-war like you have done in the future. As to your last sentence, isn't that kind of assuming bad faith? Of course I can grovel if such behaviour is actually beneficial to the community. However, if it is not, and I am forced to, say, stay away from talk page discussions (as have been advised in the past by a user named Nick Thorne), then, yeah, I'm not doing that. If that's what you meant then I agree with you. But, most likely, whatever advice I am given by admins is probably warranted, and I have no problem with (opposite, I am always happy to be) following actually helpful advice. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of edit warring

Hi Oldstone James, you’ve repeatedly accused me of edit warring without providing a shred of evidence [18][19] and have doubled down on your accusations, again without providing any evidence, on two pages when I’ve challenged you on it [20][21]. In the future please refrain from such uncivil behavior towards your fellow editors, we are all here for the same purpose and are all deserving of respect. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Given this edit here, you've got a thing or two to learn about civility yourself. Also, my accusations of you edit-warring were 100% warranted, and it is not only civil but also, in many cases, encouraged to call users out on edit-warring so that the issue doesn't escalate. Additionally, not all editors are here for the same purpose - see WP:NOTHERE, for example. Lastly, whatever it is that I was blocked for, it probably isn't edit-warring - more likely reasons are tendentiousness and generally disruptive editing, but an admin is yet to clarify this for me. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Its interesting that you’re so sure my one edit on that page constitutes an edit war when at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring you said "What I'm struggling to understand is why reverting (especially reverting edits without consensus) without edit-warring is harmful. Am I reverting "too much"? Is reverting too many edits considered tendentious, regardless of whether the reverted edits are without consensus or whether I stop reverting as soon as an edit-war is about to break out?” which seems to suggest that you don’t view reverts like mine as edit warring (at least when you do them). You then asked the question "So any revert is an edit-war?” which is an odd question to ask given that you had already asserted to me that my one revert of you was by definition an edit war. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I do review your reverts as edit-warring because they violate WP:BRD; I don't view my reverts as edit-warring because they don't violate WP:BRD. I don't want to discuss this anymore - it's quite pointless. It seems like you're happy with my block, so just enjoy it and WP:DROPTHESTICK. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

BRD is neither policy or guideline and is entirely optional, it can be ignored but it can't really be violated. Your block is unrelated to our discussion which is about your characterization of other user’s edits as edit warring (I am far from the only one you have made spurious claims against) not your own edit warring. Please review WP:BRD so that you don’t make this mistake in the future. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a policy, but if you don't violate BRD, then in most cases I don't see how it can possibly be claimed that you are edit-warring. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

What constitutes an edit war beyond the bright line of 3RR is explained at WP:EDITWAR but it is largely up to the discretion of admins. Again BRD can't really be “violated” as it is neither a policy or a guideline. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request #2

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

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

---

Request reason:

I believe my last unblock request was misunderstood. My central argument was NOT that I hadn't violated any bright-line rule or that others behaved in a similar way to mine - those were additional things that I felt were worth mentioning; my argument is that my editing wasn't disruptive. I received my block after a report on WP:AN3, which I presume means that I was blocked for edit-warring. However, all of the edits presented in the report abided by WP:BRD bar one, which re-reverted an obvious case of misunderstanding (the original revert's edit summary read content was inadvertantly restored to the article", although the content was in fact added intentionally). I understand that even reverts which follow BRD can also be disruptive; however, in this case, we have made clear progress on the article, and I have publicly thanked user:onetwothreeip, the user whose edits I frequently reverted and with whose general position I disagree, for their recent edits (which reflects the progress that we have made); additionally, I greatly appreciated user:Dlthewave's change of attitude (Dlthewave is another user whose reverts are mentioned in the report), as they started discussing the reverted changes one-by-one instead of reinstating them, and I think I mentioned this appreciation somewhere, although I can't recall where. All in all, I don't see what purpose this block serves, as I and other editors were on a path of improving the article rather than in a position of stalemate or tug-of-war, and I wasn't actually involved in edit-warring, for which I presumably received my block. Please tell me if my reasoning is flawed, as you would be very happy to take in feedback as to how my editing can be improved. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Moot per below Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

February 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I have blocked you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for disruptive editing within the area of Race and Intelligence. The first year is as a arbitration enforcement block. The rest is as a standard admin block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request and explanation

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. :Recent block: First, I will address my most recent block for edit-warring, which I believe to be a giant case of misunderstanding (here is the report where the block is first proposed). What must have happened is the blocking administrator, user:El_C, must have taken a look at the diffs provided and concluded that I kept making the same edits over and over again; it seemed this way because the diffs in question compared my edits to a fixed version rather than the preceding version, and thus the same changes were highlighted across different edits, creating the illusion that I kept reinstating the same changes, which would constitute edit-warring. However, in reality, all* the changes that I had made were totally different edits made across different time periods and were singular, independent reverts, which follow WP:BRD. For example, if we take a look at these two diffs, [22] [23], it looks like I've just reinstated the same edit twice; however, here are the exact same two edits, but now compared to the preceding version, [24] [25] - it now becomes clear that the two edits are totally independent and have nothing to do with each other. Here are another two edits that are mentioned in the report: [26] [27]. And here are the same edits when compared to the preceding version: [28] [29]; again, totally independent edits. In fact, the last edit is not even a revert; it's just a bold edit all on its own. If you still believe that I was edit-warring, you are free to take a look at Race and intelligence's page history here. (*) In reality, there was one occasion where I had not followed WP:BRD, and on that occasion I did indeed make the same revert twice; this occasion is also mentioned in the report ([30] [31]). However, this was a re-revert of a clear case of misunderstanding, as the edit-summary of the original revert read "Reverting to version before widespread Rushton content was inadvertantly restored to the article", although this restoration in fact wasn't inadvertent; re-reverts in cases of clear misunderstanding are condoned by the essay on WP:BRD, which I have been extensively recommended by experienced editors and admins. :Furthermore, in addition to my editing not being part of an edit war, I and 2 of the editors with whom I had disagreed and both of whom are mentioned in the AN3 report (user:Onetwothreeip and user:Dlthewave have managed to make progress in the article after the edits mentioned in the report took place: I had sent public thanks to onetwothreeip for two of their edits (this one and this one), and I eventually myself resorted to a version that Dlthewave previously reinstated, only adding some punctuation to top it off ([32]). :In light of the two explanations offered above, I don't believe that I was edit-warring on the article Race and intelligence, but that I had instead abided by BRD and made progress as a consequence of my and other users' editing. :My editing in the past year: The ultimate reason for my indefinite site-ban was the fact that I was frequently sanctioned in the past. Indeed, in my early Wikipedia days, when I didn't know how Wikipedia worked, my editing was often disruptive, and my behaviour was often unacceptable. My early edits were 100% and more deserved, but none of them were in vain: I had learnt from every block and, as the years went by, I learnt new editing strategies and gained a better understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. The ultimate "hot kettle" moment for me was my topic ban on creationism spring last year: from then on, I had realised that: :*I need to be extra-careful with my edits - especially on contentious topics :*That edit-warring, however insignificant, almost always had bad consequences, not only for myself but for the progress of the article in general :*That whenever there is a content dispute, I should always head to the talk page first, and that following BRD is also a good idea... :...among other things. Since then, and until the recent heat surrounding the race and intelligence article, I had edited constructively for around 9 months, without anyone having any issues with my editing and without violating WP:BRD even once. I made large edits such as this one and also smaller ones multiple times a week. It was only during the past week or two, when my editing was focused on improving the article on race and intelligence, that the first criticisms of my editing started to pop up; understandably, it is a highly contentious topic, so it is not surprising that accusations of POV pushing were directed my way. However, I believe that I was still on the whole editing constructively. But then, all of a sudden, I am block for edit-warring and soon after indef-blocked. :Once again, the premise behind this indef-block is that I had learnt nothing from my previous blocks and sanctions. However, that is certainly not the case, and I'm a different editor now than I was previously. I've been editing constructively for a whole year, and now is the first time that someone's had an issue with my editing. I believe that I have changed as an editor since my sanction last year, and the fact that I encountered no problems editing during the past year reflects that. :Final comment: Finally, I would just like to mention that, even if you don't find all of my arguments convincing, consider the fact that all of the problems that I have encountered since 2015 have been in contentious areas. Outside contentious areas, I have been editing constructively and helped improve a great number of articles. If nothing else, I can be a helpful WP:WikiGnome and improve punctuation and grammar; without me, many articles will be left poorly punctuated or read badly, and my unblock will certainly be a net positive in at least this respect. All in all, even if you aren't convinced by my previous two sections, please consider the option of unblocking with a broadly construed ban on contentious topics. Although, personally, I don't believe that such a ban is warranted, for the reasons described in the above two sections. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 03:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Consensus at Arbitration enforcement -- RexxS (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The reverts don't need to be the same for there to be edit warring or a 3RR violation (i.e. "whether involving the same or different material"). In addition to the report I closed, there was also the AN3 report from two days before, which seemed to have slipped through the cracks. El_C 03:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: So it is possible for me to follow WP:BRD AND edit-war at the same time? If so, how do I know which reverts are allowed and encouraged and which constitute edit-warring? You recently commented that harmful edits need to be reverted; but how do I know what is harmful and what is not? In my opinion, all the edits that I reverted were harmful, given that none of them had consensus and each introduced its own issues, such as grammatical and punctuational issues, removal of sourced content, etc.

Also, the report that was made two days prior focused on edits that weren't even reverts. Of the diffs provided, only one was an actual revert; all the other edits were compromise edits, which are advised by WP:BRD, and which had helped me massively in the past to avoid unnecessary content disputes by resolving the issue in-situ. Are compromise edits not recommended on contentious areas?

Finally, my editing strategy throughout the entirety of last year was "follow BRD and use common sense, and you're good". Evidently, it didn't work. But this is really easily fixed: tell me what I need to do instead, and the issue is solved. I don't think an indef block - in fact, any block or sanction - is necessary in this case. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 03:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about your indefinite block as I have not read that AE report closely. Examples of what is considered harmful edits (which are exempted from 3RR) are listed at WP:3RRNO. BRD is not binding and, again, reverting and edit warring are one and the same. El_C 03:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: (Hope you don't mind the pings) I think there is a bit more discussion that I need to have with you in case I get unblocked. Right now, I have a few questions. For example: essentially what you're saying is that, unless an edit falls under one of the categories described at WP:3RRNO, reverting this edit constitutes edit-warring and is a punishable offence. Does that mean that I can potentially get blocked for, say, reverting an unexplained removal of sourced content or, alternatively, a desperate POV push, and that such behaviour is disruptive? Another question is: if not BRD, then what strategy should I follow to make sure my editing isn't disruptive? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 04:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone, I think that you may have a slight misunderstanding of consensus and reversion. Unless special restrictions are in place, you don't need prior consensus to edit an article, and "doesn't have consensus" isn't a valid reason to revert in and of itself. You certainly don't get to violate 3RR just because somebody made a change without discussing it first. Factors such as removal of sourced content (all removals that I'm aware of had some explanation) or what you describe as POV pushing don't change that. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Thanks for pointing that out, but I was actually aware of the fact that one can edit without consensus (as per WP:BRD#Bold) and that lack of consensus is a bad reason to revert (DONTREVERT). I am also aware that I can't violate 3RR under any circumstance not covered by WP:3RRNO. However, if you take a look at my edits, you will see that I did neither of those things: I didn't violate 3RR, and I didn't revert your edits just because they didn't have consensus (my edsum actually described the true reasons). My plea not to delete massive amounts of an article without consensus was just that - a plea - and I didn't expect you to follow it if you disagreed. As I had explained earlier, the reason that I wasn't happy with your edits is that you reinstated the same edits that you had previously made, in addition to disregarding my plea (which you were free to do). But we eventually managed to reach an improved version of the article with our collaborative efforts, and you actually started engaging in discussion after each reverted edit, so I have no hard feelings about your editing in the end (quite the opposite).

As an aside, mentions of POV pushing and removal of sourced contents are just random examples of obviously bad edits that first came to mind. I don't actually think any of the edits that I reverted were clear examples of POV pushing. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 04:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeated unexplained removal of sourced content may be viewed as vandalism. I'm not sure what "desperate POV push" is — that is a bit vague. It is advisable to follow BRD, you just can't use it a shield when reverting edits that stray from it. El_C 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: But what if my only edit on Wikipedia is the revert of a singular, good-faith removal of sourced content which obviously undermines the article's quality: am I edit-warring? By "desperate POV push", I mean something like The Earth has been scientifically proven to be flat, although a movement of people with a noted lack of critical thinking, pejoratively known as "globetards", disagree with these findings. If I revert such an edit, which let's say is obviously good-faith, then am I edit-warring? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 04:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, if sourced content is removed without an explanation, it can be reverted as a test (singularly) or vandalism (repeatedly) — {{uw-delete2}} is what I usually go with in those instances. Obviously fringe content like the example cited above can be reverted on-sight as a fabrication — {{uw-error2}} is what I usually go with in those instances. El_C 04:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I have no opinion about Oldstone James' block, but can there please be a resolution to the issue I raised concerning ජපස's behavior? The AE report was closed before any other admins besides you could comment on that issue. It was especially jarring to see Black Kite raise Oldstone James' block log as a reason for him to be blocked, while ජපස's block log is the first time I have ever seen a block log so long that it can't fit on one page.

There are some ongoing issues surrounding ජපස's behavior that go beyond what I mentioned at AE. Not long ago a user who had been inactive for the past nine months, ArtifexMayhem, suddenly showed up to support a proposal by ජපස on the race and intelligence article. [33] Supporting ජපස's proposal is the only thing that user has done at Wikipedia since May of last year. This occurrence stood out to me because in a different context, it was recently mentioned that when "an inactive account has suddenly popped up just to make a response", that is an indication of off-wiki canvassing.

As an unregistered user, I can't create a new arbitration enforcement report, so raising this issue with you here is my only option for trying to get it addressed. It will be applying an obvious double standard if Oldstone James is given an indefinite block, while ජපස gets a pass. 2600:1004:B151:B3ED:893D:9625:A702:1D77 (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IP, I'm already spread a bit thin — I simply can't spare the time to devote to such an investigation. El_C 06:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Are there any other admins looking at this page who could possibly look into it? 2600:1004:B151:B3ED:893D:9625:A702:1D77 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Making sure this request isn't ignored like last time

@El C: @Black Kite: @Guerillero: How do I make sure this unblock request isn't simply ignored like last time? What actions shall I take for someone to post this on a relevant noticeboard and for this request to be considered? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Instead of posting a wall of text about how you didn't do anything wrong, how you did not edit war and that all your infractions have "only" been in contentious areas, you need to own your own behaviour, show some self awareness and recognise that it is your actions that have brought you to this impass. Given that this is not the first time you have been blocked for this sort of behaviour, how can an unblocking admin be in any way convinced that you wont simply go back to your same old ways? You have said before that you will not do it again, yet here we are. Why should anyone believe you this time? - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, great question. I have, in fact, owned my behaviour and admitted that I'd been wrong in the past. Before Spring of last year, my editing was indeed disruptive, and my blocks were deserved. I mention all of that in my unblock request.

As to how they can be convinced that I won't go back my old ways, simple: I haven't done so in an entire year, so why would I go back now? Even if my most recent block was deserved, it is clear that I had changed from the time of my last sanction, as I didn't use to follow at least BRD until then, and I do so now (and have done so for the past 10 months, with almost no exceptions); so, yes, I said that I wouldn't violate BRD, and hadn't done so since (once again, with very few exceptions). I honestly just wasn't told or aware that I wasn't allowed to revert edits at all (except for when these edits are uncontroversially harmful), and kind of assumed I was given that most editors make loads of reverts, but now that I know that I'm not, I won't revert in the future without an uncontroversial reason. There's plenty of evidence that I had learnt from my past mistakes, which includes learning to follow BRD, so I think, assuming good faith, I should be given the benefit of the doubt one last chance here. And if there is any doubt whatsoever, the solution is simple: an admin can simply block me any time at their own convenience. Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James, yeah, pretty much. Too lengthy and not introspective enough. Anyway, I suggest you redraft the unblock appeal. Also suggest you follow Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal and ask for the appeal to be submitted to AE, specifically. Good luck. El_C 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation

@Guerillero: If you don't mind, can you give me a short paragraph's worth of explanation why exactly I got indef-banned? Especially interesting to me is which bracket of WP:NOTHERE do you believe I fall into and what exactly led you to indef me instead of topic-banning, as originally proposed?

TPA removal request

Even when blocked this user is wasting a lot of people's time. The user will still have UTRS as a unblock request venue. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the, to me, surprising remarks from Guy M below, I would like to see how that discussion develops, and would not support such a proposal atm. I will not be taking part in said discussion. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oldstone James

Please post on WP:AE or WP:AN

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Year-long block (and subsequent indefinite admin block), imposed at WP:AE#Oldstone_James, logged at [34].

Administrator imposing the sanction

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Oldstone James

The main reason for my indefinite block is my editing at the article Race and intelligence, as per this statement by the blocking administrator. The specific reason why my editing was disruptive is edit-warring, as per the block summary by El_C.

Indeed, it has been explained to me by El C that my editing was unacceptable: reverting - whether following WP:BRD or not - is synonymous with edit-warring, and edit-warring is prohibited by WP:EW - especially at such a contentious article as Race and Intelligence; I had indeed made several reverts at the article, and so was duly blocked from editing for a week.

However, although I now realise that my editing was disruptive, I did not know that at the time of editing: my last sanction was a creationism topic ban imposed 10 months ago, after which several experienced editors, the most vocal of which I recall as being Guy Macon, suggested that I stick to WP:BRD to avoid edit-warring. I had taken this advice to heart, and in the past 10 months, during which I was editing extensively, I had violated WP:BRD only on very select occasions, and even on those rare occasions I had a clear reason for doing so (e.g. re-reverting an obvious misunderstanding/misreading of my edit); on these occasions also, I didn't go beyond one re-revert even a single time. For example, even out of the diffs listen in the AN report] that led to my block, the only edit that violated BRD was a reversion of a clear case of misunderstanding, whereby my edit was originally reverted for being inadvertent, even when it was in fact intentional. Needless to say as well, no bright-line rule such as WP:3RR or the WP:1RR restriction since it was imposed (after which only 1 revert was made) was violated. Now, none of this is an excuse to justify my editing at Race and Intelligence; it was wrong and won't be repeated in the future. However, I honestly thought that I wasn't edit-warring at the time because I simply wasn't told that all reverts not covered by WP:3RRNO are considered acts of edit-warring, and was instead specifically advised to follow the BRD-cycle, so my consequent edit-warring was an example of my genuine misunderstanding and confusion rather than a disregard for the rules or a general disruptive tendency.

Speaking of a lack of disruptive tendency, I had been editing constructively for 10 months without encountering any problems whatsoever; the only occasion on which my editing was found to be problematic was the one that led to the indefinite block, which was a result of my misunderstanding of the rules. Now, I had received earlier blocks than the one that eventually led to my topic ban 10 months ago, but I was just figuring out how Wikipedia works, with my lack of experience as well as persistence getting me in trouble. I am a totally different editor now, which is reflected by the fact that, despite editing many times a week consistently throughout the past year, I didn't encounter any problems up until now. My last topic ban taught me a lot of things, such as that I should never assume consensus by myself, that I should take to the talk page instead of re-reverting regardless of whether the edit that I don't agree with was part of an edit war or was made without or against consensus, and that a respectful and civil attitude is a key determinant of the community's views on my editing even if the editing itself isn't problematic (that's not to say that the editing that led to my topic ban wasn't problematic).

In light of all of the above, my proposition is simple: given that I have proven that I can learn from my mistakes and edit constructively, I believe that it is reasonable to give me one last chance and a fragile benefit of the doubt (WP:ROPE), by which I mean allow me to edit but block me indefinitely at the first shadow of a doubt. This will guarantee that my unblock is a net positive for Wikipedia: I will certainly improve many articles, by wikignoming, i.e. fixing punctuational and grammatical errors, if by no other means, and if I somehow disrupt Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form, it will only take a simple user complaint and/or admin click to get me off Wikipedia entirely. Surely, this can't be too bad for the project? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

@Guerillero: (Reply to comment at WP:AE) I just want to give a quick overview of the situation at R&I: there currently seem to be two camps; one camp accuses the other of censorship, science denialism and POV pushing, and the other camp accuses the other party of racism, promotion of pseudoscience, and POV pushing. The two camps are roughly equal in numbers, with a slight numerical majority of editors being on the former camp (which I am on). You can get a very nice overview of the opinions and size of these two groups of editors here or, perhaps less clearly, here. Either way, it is far from unanimous that my editing constituted POV pushing. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

I have had previous disputes with Oldstone James, and am quite familiar with the circumstances that led up to the block. In my considered opinion all sanctions should be lifted. I think that we are going to look back a year from now and be glad that we did. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Oldstone James

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Posted

 Posted. El_C 02:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks a lot! Can you add Guy Macon's comment as well? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 02:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Touching bases

(This is just me talking to you, not an official response to the block appeal).

I just went back and reviewed all of our prior interactions. I am reminded of myself back when I first started editing Wikipedia -- except my behavior was far, far worse. I really do think that if you are unblocked I am going to end up being glad I vouched for you. As you yourself mentioned in your appeal, you would have to be a total idiot to ask for an unblock and immediately behave in such a way as to get blocked again. I do not believe that you are stupid.

It looks like you are heading for an unblock. If that happens, I would like to invite you to come to my talk page and discuss any problems you might run into while editing Wikipedia, and to ask if you would mind an occasional "I am having trouble with this page. Is it something you might be interested in working on?" message from me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult to understate how much I appreciate your attitude. I honestly thought that you were just being vengeful and wouldn't change your mind about me no matter what, but I now see that I was either wrong or you have changed for the better since then, or probably both. Needless to say, it takes quite a lot of good intention to support the unblock of someone who has wasted so much of your time and gave you as much shit as I did. It's now clear to me that your pledge to return to old-fashioned Wikipedian values was a genuine attempt to improve yourself as an editor, something which I once doubted; I thought you simply ignored me when I expressed these doubts, but you obviously listened to what I had to say, even if you didn't agree with it - if you didn't, you wouldn't be here arguing for my unblock.

Thanks a lot for this offer! It would be really helpful if I could pop in at your talk page just to make sure that I understand the policies correctly; if I had this option earlier, I'm sure I would've avoided a lot of trouble, including this indef-block for sure.

And of course I wouldn't mind this type of messages at all! I am always happy to solve issues when they arise; after all, that's what I am here on Wikipedia for: to make sure the project is as polished and as accurate as possible.

Finally, I know it may already be clear from my unblock request, but I just wanted to say that I didn't at first realise how much of what you were saying a year ago was actually true; BRD alone saved me a couple of hours' worth of editing time at least. I now know that I should take extreme care when applying this process, but as long as I do, it is of massive help. But it's not just BRD: there were several occasions throughout the past year when an unpleasant situation arose and I thought to myself, "hold on, didn't this Guy Macon guy describe a solution to situations like these last year?", then applied the solution, and it worked almost every time. To be honest with you, I still don't agree with some of the things that you'd said and done a year ago, but the more time passed, the more I realised how much of what you were saying wasn't just a quest to patronise me or appear righteous (which is what I thought at the time) and was instead a genuine attempt to help. To this end, I'd like to thank you (and some other editors, actually, including even jps, with whom I still have a few issues) for putting me on the right path and just generally making editing on Wikipedia easier. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Result of appeal to AE

There is a consensus at AE that your block should be replaced by a topic ban from the areas covered by race and intelligence and pseudoscience, broadly construed. This is to give you an opportunity to edit constructively in areas where you have not run into conflict.

I have therefore unblocked you, and I will add formal notice of the topic bans below. The topic bans will be for one year, and I strongly recommend that you edit in areas wholly unrelated, and ensure that you don't skate the borders of what is allowed. A good rule-of-thumb is that if you're unsure whether a particular subject falls under these topic bans, then it probably does. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Good tidings, OldstoneJames. But I hope you're aware that your ban extends to the topic area of Creationism, also. El_C 21:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James, you might want to reconsider whether this comment is a good idea: [35] Do you know whether topic bans extend to arbitration pages such as WP:AE? If they don't, that comment is probably fine, but it's better to be safe than sorry. 2600:1004:B165:9E9:C47A:5E05:FDA6:EB51 (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It is generally considered OK (but certainly not required) to make some sort of closing comment at EA or ANI when you get a topic ban, but going on and on about it with multiple replies is definitely frowned upon. One important distinction: you should talk about the topic ban and your understanding of it, without talking about the topic. The comment linked to above does not do this. I advise striking the comment and going silent on the topic.

I advise Oldstone James to not respond to the above or any other comments having to do with the topic ban. In fact, the best way forward is to simply drop the entire subject and move on to other things. One welcome exception would be a post here on the talk page indicating "I understand the restrictions" and possibly thanking those of us who vouched for OJ and called for a lifting of the block. The best way to stop discussing something is to stop discussing it. :) (edited for clarity) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not a closing comment on their own ANI thread, its a comment on a completely different report. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Missed that. Not good at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from editing or commenting on anything related to the subject of 'race & intelligence', broadly construed, for a period of 12 months.

You have been sanctioned following consensus at Arbitration enforcement

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RexxS (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from editing or commenting on anything related to the subject of 'pseudoscience', broadly construed, for a period of 12 months.

You have been sanctioned following consensus at Arbitration enforcement

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. RexxS (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your post at WP:AE regarding a Race and Intelligence dispute

Hello Oldstone James. Your post here (at 22:47 on 1 March) regarding a complaint about Peregrine Fisher seems to violate your recently-imposed topic ban from the area of Race and Intelligence. There may still be time for you to undo or strike out your post. If you don't think your ban relates to this, you might ask User:RexxS who entered your R&I ban in the log at 21:21 on 1 March. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks a lot for this message! The thought that if I'd gone to bed half an hour later than I did I'd still be unblocked makes me pretty frustrated. It was stupid of me not to consider that this edit violated the topic ban. But no complaints now, I guess. Guess I'll have to wait for 6 whole friggen months to be able to edit again because of this stupid mistake. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Continuation of edit war claim

Hi Oldstone James, in your recent edit [36] you repeated your edit warring accusation against me which we discussed earlier. Unless supported by diffs your comments amount to Wikipedia:Casting aspersions which the Arbitration Committee has ruled quite clearly on. I made myself and the related policy crystal clear before, why continue your baseless accusations within moments of being unblocked? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

OJ: What the hell? You went to an AE case that clearly says "Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary_sanctions" at the top and added a statement? Please don't make me sorry that I vouched for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon's Advice to Oldstone James

My advice to you stay completely away for anything even close to the topics you are banned from. Don't be that person who keeps standing standing with with his toes over the line he is not allowed to cross, and in general behave in such a way that if anyone reports you at EA or ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting the administrator's time. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Too late.

"This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

00:37, 2 March 2020 RexxS talk contribs blocked Oldstone James talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Breach of AE topic ban immediately after being unblocked)

Good block. I feel like a fool for standing up for you and advising an unblock. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I feel like a total idiot. Crap. This was very stupid of me. I have no idea how I thought this wouldn't violate the topic ban. Well, I have no excuses now. This is incredibly stupid, but oh well. I can't believe all my efforts into getting unblocked are now nullified by this one stupid mistake. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Do I wait 6 months now for my next unblock request, or what's your advice? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I created an alternate account recently, and I've read more about what is considered a legitime and an illegitimate reason for creating alternate accounts, and apparently making a clean start while under a restriction, even if you have no intent of violating it, isn't considered legitimate (which makes perfect sense, now that I think about it). Looks like I am simply struggling with what is allowed and what is not and would probably have gotten caught in this trap sooner or later even if I wasn't blocked again. I now think that an indef block was unavoidable. Wikipedia just isn't for me, I guess. Sorry for wasting your time on this issue and misleading you to believe that I don't deserve a block, because now even I'm starting to think I do. That said, thanks a lot for all the trust you've put in me and all the effort you've put in to help me. In my opinion, you shouldn't feel like an idiot but instead as someone who tried to do right thing but just didn't happen to be successful on this occasion; in reality, I am convinced that, if you try to do the right thing every time, in the majority of instances that will pay off, so please don't let this case mislead you. In this regard, I fully and wholeheartedly concur with user:Schazjmd's comments on your talk page. Please keep this attitude up (I say that as a human being if not as a Wikipedia editor). ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 08:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It really did end up being as mentioned, a lot of trouble for naught. While I believe that the ban was contravened unwittingly, Oldstone James, you are still responsible for anything your user account does. I appreciate the introspection, however. El_C 09:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Of course, I don't debate that. It's stupid and unnecessary but not certainly not undeserved. If anything, I agree with the block, as I mentioned above. I still believe that I would improve Wikipedia if I was given the right to edit, but there are rules that you have to follow and stick to; otherwise, the project will break down. And right after being unblocked, I have violated two policies at once, it seems. I have no excuses. I'll just have to deal with the block, as much as I hate it, and find a way to not get annoyed at seeing grammatical mistakes in articles and my inability to fix them.

By the way, is there really any point in appealing my indef block again at some time in the future (like in 6 or 12 months), or is it all over? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 09:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Oldstone James, it would be worthwhile to pursue an appeal at some time in the future, in my view. El_C 09:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That is really refreshing to hear. See you in 6 months, then, hopefully? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Please ping upon request. El_C 09:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 09:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breach of your AE topic ban on R&I on the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

RexxS (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

All that for naught. El_C 00:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Final message before I go

El_C, RexxS, Guy Macon, and others who have put time and effort into getting me unblocked: please don't feel like you've wasted your time on me. It may seem like all of this was, as El C puts it, for naught, but it's honestly not: if I hadn't been unblocked in the first place, I would most likely still be convinced that I was blocked unfairly and that Wikipedia is a hopelessly toxic community; every time that I would see an article that I could improve, my frustration would probably be doubled by the knowledge that I would've been able to improve it if it wasn't for the "toxicity" of the project. Needless to say, I won't feel this way now. While you guys may not have gotten me unblocked in the end, you have helped me realise that my block is ultimately deserved, which is good for both myself and the project, as I will have learnt all the right lessons (e.g. that the underlying problem that has gotten me into pretty much all the trouble that I have gotten into on Wikipedia is my horrible lack of attentiveness and understanding of policies) if and when I hopefully come back, making my editing on Wikipedia more productive.

Just wanted to put my 2 cents in as I saw a couple of messages where you have expressed disappointment in your actions, but I just don't think you should feel this way - not only because I personally don't think one should ever be disappointed if they were doing the right thing, but also because your efforts weren't "for naught", either. And, of course, it goes without saying that I greatly appreciate your help and good intent. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 10:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to add on what's been said, read WP:SOCK, your WP:SO only begins where your socking ends and further socking may result in no standard offer at all. It might have been an honest mistake, but that's irrelevant when it comes to violating conduct policies. Best of luck and I hope you enjoy your time outside of Wikipedia. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I have in fact taken a look at WP:SOCK a couple of hours ago and raised that my other account would fall under the category of a sockpuppet. Thank you for your words. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 11:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. I have deliberatly kept away from most of the discussion surrounding this, but I do think you owe Wikipedia for all the WP:ROPE we wasted on you. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I applaud that you wouldn't let your personal feelings get in the way of an objective decision. Well, I wouldn't say wasted, as I've already described, but indeed I am grateful. I think there were moments where I deserved some WP:ROPE but was not given it, but this is clearly not one of those moments. I owe Wikipedia because it is my duty to improve it. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 12:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't buy it. You wrote a lot of sincere-sounding words about following my advice next time and appeared to accept my offer to help you and discuss potentially troublesome edits on my talk page before you made the edits. So did you ask me (you could have asked by email) if I thought that editing as NaìuviaAeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a good idea? You did not. Did you ask me whether it was a good idea to comment on an editor at AE who is involved in the Race and intelligence topic that you were topic banned from? You did not. And now I see you writing more nice sincere-sounding words. Sorry, but I cannot hear your words. Your actions are too deafening.

I am unwatching this page now. I have zero interest in anything you have to say. I vouched for you. does that mean nothing to you?

If he ever appeals again, would someone please ping me? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

No probs. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I can't blame you for your attitude. I have disappointed everyone, I know. That actually feels much worse than even the fact that I got indeffed. I don't expect you to change your mind about me, to trust me, or to support my unblock in the future (I'd totally understand if you'd voted to keep me indeffed forever). I just genuinely wanted to let you know that your own efforts weren't for nothing, that's all.

Take what I've written as you like. My comment was not about me - it was about the editors who have put their trust in me and who I have disappointed, which includes you. Regardless of what you think about me, I just wanted to put it out there that your approach is appreciated, and that your efforts didn't amount to nothing. That's literally it. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: at least three other editors agree with me on this (Schazjmd, El_C, and Roxy the dog). If you don't want to trust me, trust them. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 17:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Unasked for advice

I hold no animosity towards you, despite our past conflicts, but I wanted to make sure that you didn't lose in the noise what I recommended in your AE appeal and what I continue to think would be good medicine for your current predicament (and perhaps may be the only way forward). Work on related Wikimedia projects: Wikisource, Wikicommons, Simple.en, Wikibooks, etc. Invest your energy that you want to invest in Wikipedia on those projects. Demonstrate that you can collaborate, wikignome, etc. Don't sock, don't complain, don't argue, and come back in six months to appeal under standard offer. If you have considerable evidence that you can function in similar sorts of communities without issue, you will find your appeal succeeds.

jps (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Might as well start looking up things in Russian or French insteadof English now, because that's the only way I can see myself switching to a different Wikiproject. Not sure if even this will help, though, given that I've already been given a chance to redeem myself, and I fucked it up in less than a day on two independent occasions at once. And this will happen again, of course, because I'm really bad at understanding policies perfectly - whenever I feel like I've got gist of a policy, there will always be a nuance that I hadn't considered. I don't even know what to do about this - I can't ask for advice regarding every action that I take here on Wikipedia, after all. I think I will get on just fine if editors call me out on something before imposing taking action against me, but I don't know how to convince the community of this. From the community's point of view, I've already been given a fair few chances which I didn't manage to take.

It seems like you came here with good intent, so I will ask you with good intent: do you have any advice for me on this issue, having been in a similar situation yourself, I believe? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 19:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Oldstone James, have you thought about Simple English Wikipedia? I don't know how good your language skills are -personally, I can read French, but I've never felt confident enough about my grammar to trust myself to write content in French. Simple English, however, is perhaps something to try your hand at. Writing about complex topics in language that is easily accessible is a real skill, and something which could be useful in any contributions you might make here in the future - it might be a useful learning experience, as well as a way to demonstrate collaborative tendencies that people will be looking for in future. Just a thought anyway - do with it what you will, and best wishes. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but the problem with that is that my editing pattern goes something like this: "waste time on the internet -> look up a Wikipedia article pertinent to the topic that I'm wasting my time on -> correct the article if there are any mistakes". Therefore, I can easily hop on to the French or Russian Wikipedia if I do my research in either of these languages, but I can't do my research in "simple English". To be honest with you, I wouldn't be 100% confident with my French grammar if I had to write out a long sentence, but I mostly make small edits here on English Wikipedia, anyway, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem. On the other hand, my knowledge of Russian is pretty much native.

But I'll take what you've said into account. Editing at Simple Wikipedia may even help me with my uni degree, part of which involves writing essays that focus on clarity and concision. So I may edit there from time to time as well. Thanks for your feedback. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

do you have any advice for me on this issue, having been in a similar situation yourself, I believe? I'm really serious about other projects, this is exactly what I did when blocked once and it worked out very well. I understand that this is out of your wheelhouse in terms of how you ended up at Wikipedia, but I'm telling you that commons, wikisource, simple are all fantastic options. You can do research at all of them too (just start at those pages instead of Google). Do some work at other projects and collaborate. Building up skills on those sites will transfer, I promise. jps (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and other languages are fine too! jps (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll just do what you have suggested and hope for the best. Thanks! ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 12:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Am I allowed to interact with other users?

@El C: There was a content dispute that popped up on my watchlist which I believe I can help resolve. Am I allowed to address one of the users involved here regarding the issue? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 22:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You may not. Usage of this talk page is to be limited to appeals only. El_C 22:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 23:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Message to Iroh

I am aware that I am not allowed to interact with users here on Wikipedia, but Iroh doesn't seem to have an email account linked to their Wikipedia user page, so there doesn't appear to be a way that I can contact them outside of Wikipedia. Furthermore, the message is unrelated to any Wikipedia article or topic, so I hope this message isn't too much of a big deal?

Hey, Iroh! I recently received a notification upon having been tagged by jps in a comment that suspected your user page might be one of my sockpuppet accounts, in response to which you have expressed the sentiment that my grammar wasn't always up to scratch. I have always been curious as to how I come across to other people - particularly, and especially having experienced a recent surge of interest in linguistics, in how my language is perceived. Would you care to elaborate on what aspects of my grammar are lacking and perhaps provide some illustrative examples? ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅} 20:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk Page Access Withdrawn

Due your your continual socking and your use of your talk page for something other than appealing your block, I have removed your ability to edit your talk page. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014–15 Super League Greece table

Template:2014–15 Super League Greece table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hhkohh (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)