User talk:Jpgordon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:43, 28 September 2020

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.

David Cole

If the man talks for 2 hours about how there was a Holocaust then you can decide he is not a denier. It's as good a source as the others listed here which are just articles that mention his name and add the epithet denier without citing anything he has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGoodPitch (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

,@AGoodPitch:, please read the article and review the reliable sources that describe him in exactly that way. I have no idea what his current views are (nor do you, actually, because people say all sorts of things they may or may not believe), but when he was younger he certainly became known for exactly that. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ideas/advice on Mel Lyman page

You reverted some whitewashing. The user did it again. Then I reverted, and it was undid again. I don't want to get into a thing about it, but I think that one user has a bit of an agenda w/r/t the Mel Lyman page. Ideas on how to go forward? Jessamyn (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey looks like you were working to protect the page. That should work OK. Thanks! Jessamyn (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your name and my name

They're pretty similar. You think I should capitalize the JPG in my sig? jp×g 11:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sure don't care one way or another -- lots of us jpegs in the world. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration, Input and Block Request

Hi Jpgordon, I am just writing to you to ask for your advice and assistance in resolving a continuing problem with a certain 'Kiengir'. I apologise for occupying your time but really require your help in enforcing some preventative measures against the relevant account. Though I have attempted to facilitate a dialogue numerous times and pursue a more diplomatic route, the user is disinterested until his edit is enforced, there is simply no room for a difference of opinion. This is becoming problematic as he consistently targets articles related to Ukraine, finding the term 'Ukrainian' and intententionally removing it. Upon further inspection of his page, it appears that Ukraine related articles are not the only to have been subject to this 'harassment', other ethnic groups opposed to by Hungarian nationalists have also been puntatively edited by 'Kiengir' including articles concerning: Croatia, Romania and Austria. It appears that the user is 'Not Here to Build a Wikipedia' but rather to channel potential nationalist inclinations through his edits. I am really struggling to deal with this alone and would be so grateful of your assistance. I am aware that you have had some experience with the user but within a few months he had returned to edit warring and other counter-productive measures. Engaging with the user as I said can be problematic not only because diplomacy simply does not work but because he is prone to 'gross incivility': "Don't you ever dare to modify my personal page", "Which part of this simple logic do you not understand?", "see, your problem is with the English language. You do not understand what means CONTEMPORARY. Check a vocabulary or talk with an English teacher,maybe the third time you won't make yourself again ridicoulus!", "Your grammar lesson is what you had to learn, since then you would not make the edit that you made, the rest is a useless trash talk. If you do not answer anymore", "B****s..t, if I would have wanted to hide anything from the Hungarian fans I would have make disappear half of he content that is heavily citing everything about Hungarians", "you have to ashamed about your behavior". He has been involved in edit warring up to 6 times, disruptive editing up to 3 times, canvassing 2 and being on the ANI page more than 4 times. As previously stated, he regularly 'harasses' and 'vandalises' articles related to Ukraine whilst bolstering the Hungarian cause across Wikipedia at the detriment of his broader political opponents, he is consistently engaged in 'edit-warring' and is "Not here to build an encyclopedia". I really dont see why this would not be enough rationale for a block at least on the topic of Ukraine, of which he regularly targets, not to productively contribute but to remove anything that happens to mention 'Ukrainian'. There have been instances whereby I have begun editing a page only to find he had intentionally found the page to undo my edits, not only does this breach Wikipedia guidelines but as you can imagine it creates a toxic environment in which one feels they cannot contribute to Wikipedia. For the wellbeing of Wikipedia and users I really hope this message reaches you and the relevant user can blocked.Thank you very muchDanielLerish (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 :I sure don't care one way or another -- lots of us jpegs in the world. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; ]]</small></sup> 17:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
+== Arbitration, Input and Block Request ==
 Hi [[User:Jpgordon|Jpgordon]], I am just writing to you to ask for your advice and assistance in resolving a continuing problem with a certain 'Kiengir'. I apologise for occupying your time but really require your help in enforcing some preventative measures against the relevant account. Though I have attempted to facilitate a dialogue numerous times and pursue a more diplomatic route, the user is disinterested until his edit is enforced, there is simply no room for a difference of opinion. This is becoming problematic as he consistently targets articles related to Ukraine, finding the term 'Ukrainian' and intententionally removing it. Upon further inspection of his page, it appears that Ukraine related articles are not the only to have been subject to this 'harassment', other ethnic groups opposed to by Hungarian nationalists have also been puntatively edited by 'Kiengir' including articles concerning: Croatia, Romania and Austria. It appears that the user is 'Not Here to Build a Wikipedia' but rather to channel potential nationalist inclinations through his edits. I am really struggling to deal with this alone and would be so grateful of your assistance. I am aware that you have had some experience with the user but within a few months he had returned to edit warring and other counter-productive measures. Engaging with the user as I said can be problematic not only because diplomacy simply does not work but because he is prone to 'gross incivility': "Don't you ever dare to modify my personal page", "Which part of this simple logic do you not understand?", "see, your problem is with the English language. You do not understand what means CONTEMPORARY. Check a vocabulary or talk with an English teacher,maybe the third time you won't make yourself again ridicoulus!", "Your grammar lesson is what you had to learn, since then you would not make the edit that you made, the rest is a useless trash talk. If you do not answer anymore", "B****s..t, if I would have wanted to hide anything from the Hungarian fans I would have make disappear half of he content that is heavily citing everything about Hungarians", "you have to ashamed about your behavior". He has been involved in edit warring up to 6 times, disruptive editing up to 3 times, canvassing 2 and being on the ANI page more than 4 times. As previously stated, he regularly 'harasses' and 'vandalises' articles related to Ukraine whilst bolstering the Hungarian cause across Wikipedia at the detriment of his broader political opponents, he is consistently engaged in 'edit-warring' and is "Not here to build an encyclopedia". I really dont see why this would not be enough rationale for a block at least on the topic of Ukraine, of which he regularly targets, not to productively contribute but to remove anything that happens to mention 'Ukrainian'. There have been instances whereby I have begun editing a page only to find he had intentionally found the page to undo my edits, not only does this breach Wikipedia guidelines but as you can imagine it creates a toxic environment in which one feels they cannot contribute to Wikipedia. For the wellbeing of Wikipedia and users I really hope this message reaches you and the relevant user can blocked.Thank you very much[[User:DanielLerish|DanielLerish]] ([[User talk:DanielLerish|talk]]) 17:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[[User:DanielLerish|DanielLerish]]