User talk:Jamesthepilot

March 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Bilby. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Bilby (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, are you aware that Susan is and has been involved with a group of people working to stop transparency on US congress specific information on UAP?

how does someone file a complaint about Susan for impartial investigation for the gorilla skeptic group that she is involved in. 92.237.139.171 (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it involves personal information, the best place to send concerns is to the abritration committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. - Bilby (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the archive so I can add a reference link? Jamesthepilot (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are referring to. However, I see that you have added it again without an appropriate reference. You will need to find a reliable reference - Reddit is not reliable as there is no editorial control. I suggest that if you have concerns with the subject that you raise them with arbcom as per above, rather than editing the article directly. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, the article links to Susan Gerbics OWN Website pages! She’s written this stuff herself!

Above you said you removed the paragraph and placed it in the archive. Where is the archive you mentioned? Jamesthepilot (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see what you mean now - that was a templated response, and wasn't accurate. Sory, I did not know that it was worded that way. Anyway, I checked the link and it went to Reddit. From there it included another reddit post, which included a tweet, which in turn referenced a Skeptical Inquirer article that did not say what you claimed - just that she had edited a page on a Luis Elizondo.

Unless you have a source that specifically references what you write it can't really be added. Especially when that source can't be reddit or anything self published like a podcast or twitter. If you have a concern arbcom is pretty much the only group on Wikipedia able to handle private information, so you will need to get in touch with them. - Bilby (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous people referencing websites that are self published. This only goes to show that Wiki is not fit for purpose if it's one rule for one and one for another. Im greatly concerned. I will absolutely go and find the correct first had website where she is referring through an independent institution what she is doing, admitting it herself, and post again. Before you take it down you should take the time to read the link. If editing is just reading the first page then it's not really digging down to the depths of what this woman has been doing. She appears to be a prime reason that wiki is failing to be factual. 92.237.139.171 (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about an editor's behaviour, and it involves personal information, there is a group able to look into it and you can contact them via email. Otherwise, the rules for editing articles about living people are quite strict. Before you make another change, I suggest you read through WP:BLP which outlines the main rules in this area. It is heavy going, but it limits what all of us can do. - Bilby (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby, I appreciate your advice, Are you in anyway connected with this group, with Susan Gerbic or any of her cohorts? I totally appreciate that facts need to be ascertained. Im absolutely wanting to meet the requirements of transparency. The information I have submitted are perhaps needing to be better referenced and I have now done so. But this information lacking from a factual record or actively being removed from factual record is against the terms you reference in wikipedia itself. No where is there a reference to their training page which makes it clear that this person runs a secret cabal. This is a fact, purported by the group themselves.

As now referenced. I apologise for wasting your time, but I would like to know if you are connected with this group. It has been rumoured that there are people watching this woman's page and ensuring that nothing of the true facts appear on her page. This is morally wrong when facts are being withheld or actively removed. Jamesthepilot (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply,Susan Gerbic would be affronted at the suggestion that I might be a member of the Guerrilla Skeptics. I am note. What I am concerned about is following policy, and I'm willing to apply that equally on any article. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Thanks Bilby. I appreciate your candor. I too just want clear unreported facts to ensure that people get a true understanding of a group/situation/policy etc.

i feel that wiki needs to have important facts as part of this profile. In this case their own reference to being a secret cabal (as Wiki says negative connotations) is an important fact.

thank you for your time and effort in making sure I keep the highest independent standard if I’m making an edit! Jamesthepilot (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article Joke. The "secret cabal" thing is a long running joke among Wikipedia editors that goes back many years. You can see the joke explained ad nauseum at Wikipedia:List of cabals. Have a laugh! Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Scotland. I’m sure your not honestly serious that as a Scot u believe this is fair.

secondly. The cabal just proved itself.

tell Susan I said Hi! Jamesthepilot (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

everything that was posted was factually correct and for an admin to elude that I’m not wanting an encyclopaedia proves they didn’t drill down the cited linked page. The quotes are and were factually correct. Non were hearsay. In the event the admin is one of Susan’s trainees then there is a clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia cannot remove edits that are factually correct. In doing so you undermine the very nature of what you claim to nurture. Jamesthepilot (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Upon my review of this matter I think that the reason for the block is correct. As noted, if you have evidence that an admin is secretly working on behalf of an article subject, you should provide that evidence to the Arbitration Committee. Opposition to your edits, which clearly violated policy, is not evidence. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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