User talk:Jack.B.2007

November 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.edit of concern --Hipal (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What 'edit' would that be? I haven't made any edits to any Wikipedia pages, besides my own personal page. You mean my comments on the Dr. John A. McDougall discussion page? The ones that criticize the existing article? How exactly is that serving the public interest by saying there will be no criticism of existing articles? please explain and elaborate here or I will remove this message. ~~ Jack.B.2007 (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hipal. You still haven't answered my question. What policy of Wikipedia did I break? I clearly did nothing wrong other than being outnumbered by a bunch of people with a different viewpoint on a controversial entry. This is a discussion page. Wikipedia doesn't want discussion or input? I think you're just threatening me to let me know I'm not welcome on Wikipedia, even though I've been editing here since 2009. Let me know if you have a different tack. ~~

See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS#4, 5, 6; WP:AGF; WP:FOC; Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Final_decision --Hipal (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if you could translate that into English or actually write here what I requested you to put here, in the first place. You haven't made any sort of effective case that I have violated any policy. you've definitely let me know that I am not welcome. I'm wondering why that is? Sounds like you have an idealogical problem with my editing or what has been said about me on Wikipedia in the past. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that a helpful reply, but just another example of the problems pointed out. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would reply in the same way. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome here. The behavior you are demonstrating here and in the diff are not. --Hipal (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Dec 22

Do not use article talk pages to tell us how crap we are. Also read wp:blp. Maybe also WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also if you do not wish to donate, please do not do so, but do not try and use the threat to get your way, it will not work, Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

And read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

the whole point of a discussion page in some sort of democratic endeavor is to have an honest and open discussion. So you are threatening me because I have a minority opinion? That's not very encouraging. And who is "we"? I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for many years. You apparently misunderstand what I'm saying on some of these discussion pages; I'm saying Wikipedia is beyond broken in this regard. I don't expect it to change. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I believe it's December 2 in most parts of the world, at least on this half . Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No I am asking you to read and obey our policies. And no we are WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't want the discussion about the quality of the article? It's quality is poor. Sometimes you have to get systemic with your analysis to really get to the root of the problem. Sorry if I've offended you. I hope Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against anything I've actually done. Maybe you could go more into detail it for those that don't like reading jargon or clicking on links? d why don't you just give an example specifically of what policy I've broken. Thanks Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

by the way, we should note here, since this is a public page, that you were upset with my recent comments on the Graham Hancock DISCUSSION page of Wikipedia. That is what all this criticism of my work is about. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

OK wp:npa [[1]] "seeing that kind of arrogance and stupidity evidenced on pages such as this". [[2]] might violate wp:soap as it is (in effect a call to action "The answer is to dump Wikipedia, as it has now become the Facebook of the Internet encyclopedia realm" and "Look up the Knowledge Standards Foundation, led by Larry Sanger." WP:PROMOTION arguably. wp:blp and wp:fringe "just for a little context about scientific orthodoxy and its viciousness towards those that have competing ideas...", "He's getting this blowback from those that are attached to the status quo, despite abundant evidence that they are likely mistaken..". In fact this "If Wikipedia had any fairness or honor at all, it would allow competing articles on the same platform." is the only line that is actually about improving the article rather than telling how unfair we are. This is my last word here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. You're still using a lot of jargon and links, but I'm starting to understand what you're upset over, apparently. I think what you're saying is that you think the quality of the Hancock article is fine and that the only person that has a problem is me. You are saying that I violate Wikipedia policies by criticizing the quality of any existing article by putting it within context of systemic problems with Wikipedia itself. If I understand what you are saying, it is that I do not have the right to criticize Wikipedia itself on Wikipedia. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No, but you can't have a meta discussion about Wikipedia on the talk page of a specific article, see below. You can discuss particular policies and guidelines on their talk pages. We also have various "Village pumps" - Wikipedia:Village pump. Or you can ask at HELP:Wikipedia where you should post a particular comment. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not general discussion forums

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Therese Neumann for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

i vigorously disagree with your comment that any comment I made on any Wikipedia page, including that of Teresa Neumann, was not specifically designed to improve the article or to let other editors know that I thought it was at least for the time being, hopeless to improve the quality of that article. It sounds very authoritarian for you to threaten me because I was making a systemic WP comment about the quality of a certain page. Control from the top down---that's what Wikipedia believes.in, and that's why I am so troubled by the behavior of many people on it. It's not the way to a better world and not the way to share knowledge. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, show me where your discussion referred to reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines. So far as top down goes, your lack of experience is the only reason you think that. Of course I have no idea what you mean by topdown. Oh, and where is my threat? I've been trying to give you good advice as to what you can do. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:RudyRatzinger. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Their behaviour was also unacceptable, that's no reason for you to copy them. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Practice what you preach [you must acknowledge that you are making a threat yourself right now, if you are actually honest]. I think what most people that comment on my page are really saying is that they don't want any criticism of Wikipedia.

I'm sorry you don't like people to discuss being threatened by other editors. I think it's a serious issue on Wikipedia and please forgive me if every now and then I speak about it publicly. I guess what you are saying is that you are the cops and that we are never to speak any ill of any ill going on this website. That's pretty much what I understand what you are saying... even if another editor is extremely aggressive, we are never to speak of it? Got it. That's why I don't really edit on this platform anymore. It's extremely authoritarian [is that what you believe in?] Jack.B.2007 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again, we have a venue to report threats, it's at WP:ANI. That's the place to it, not to indulge in tit for tat discussions reminiscent of childhood "You're an ...., no you're an ...." We are anything but authoritarian, we have plenty of venues where anyone can take part in debates of policies, conduct, etc. We even have an elected commmittee to deal with conduct the community can't handle. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)