User talk:Gentlejackjones

December 2014

Hello, I'm Gloss. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Suzanne Collins seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gloss 21:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Daphne, Alabama

Hi, I'm unsure why you removed the notable person entry from the Daphne, Alabama page. He attended Daphne High School and his parents hold a Daphne address. Perhaps a comment in the edit summary would help. JodyB _talk 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jody! I removed the Islamic militant from the Daphne "Notable People" section because it does not appear that he is really notable in a way that relates to Daphne, although I understand he was born and attended high school there. Also, I'm not sure he's all that notable, in that he went to Africa, joined a fringe Jihadist group, and was then killed by them-- hardly the picture of a "leader" or an important part of that group's dealings.

I took him off the page again, but if you feel strongly that he should be included, I won't delete it again.

Thanks, Gentlejackjones (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts. Please take a look at my reasoning on the talk page [1] and I think we might be able to agree.I'm not going to re-add it until we can talk some. JodyB _talk 21:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey JodyB,

I read your relevant language on the Daphne talk page and it is soundly reasoned; I agree, now, that he is notable. Thanks for educating me on the processes of Wikipedia and on this unfortunate individual. Although I don't know how to undo my edit, I am in complete agreement with your re-addition of the militant and apologize for the hassle.

Many thanks and kind regards,

Gentlejackjones (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I took care of the edit. It's good to meet you and work with you. If I can ever help, let me know. JodyB _talk 23:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Acroterion (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand, Acroterion, and I'm sorry you had to be involved. I earnestly tried to discuss the dispute with [User:Meters], then resolve the dispute civilly and in good faith. These efforts backfired horribly, however. I truly appreciate your time, and defer to your Wikipedia prowess. I will learn from this interaction with Meters to determine how to best interact with (or disengage from) such users in the future, but I would be remiss if I did not include a plea that you, or someone else, please look into her ongoing conduct towards our fellow Wikipedians/human beings. Gentlejackjones (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I never violated the BLP rule or participated in edit warring. After I originally edited the page for [The Hunger Games], [Suzanne Collins], and [The Hunger Games] (trilogy) with a section regarding the similarities between that work and [Battle Royale], I got a message on this page from [User:Meters] unilaterally accusing me of disruptive editing and employing a Level-3 or above warning sign. She also deleted the entirety of my additions, claiming BLP violations on portions of the text, then moved the remaining text (again, unilaterally) to a different part of the article, deleting it entirely from the [Suzanne Collins] and trilogy pages. After I discussed the edits with her in my talk page (asking her to be friendly despite her hostile tone-- and apologizing for using sources such as Buzzfeed for some of my edits), I put a more well-sourced version of the article content I originally intended back into the three articles. She again removed the content from [Suzanne Collins] and the trilogy pages, and "issued" me a level-5 warning-- garbing herself in the apparent authority of a Wiki admin, which I earnestly posit is a position for which she would be entirely ill-suited. I again attempted to reason with [User:Meters], and again was met with derision. On her page, I asked her to stop "biting the newbies," and reminded her of Wikipedia's open policy and the "be bold" policy, and informed her that she was chilling speech and bullying less experienced users, and she deleted the posts without comment, telling me to "stay off [her] page." She then added more content to my page, harassing me regarding my editing and threatening to have me blocked. She continued by making pithy edits to the [Hunger Games] page, employing ad hominem attacks by calling me "weasely", etc. I did replace my content on her page, as I wanted its content to be memorialized for this dispute, in the event that her refusal to meet me halfway in good faith continued (which it obviously did). I didn't realize that I could later get the content from her page in the dispute resolution process, because I never even knew about the dispute resolution process. I apologize for reposting the material on her talk page. On previous edits, I either accepted the more experienced editor's changes (see above) without negative comment, or actively thanked them for educating me (see JodyB interaction above). These editors were courteous, professional, and a joy to work with. I attempted numerous olive leafs to [User:Meters], but all were refused, rudely, the last of which was actually Wikilove from me to her (using a .png of The Treaty of Metre), which she deleted from her page and tried to use against me to the admins. Lastly, she edited my edit-warring complaint against her, which I'm not even sure is allowed, and misrepresented the entire account to the admins, which may have led to my current block. Please keep Wikipedia a place where new contributors are welcomed, not brutalized, new content is thoughtfully considered, not brusquely rejected, and where the exchange of ideas is open and free, not closed and muted. I firmly pledge to learn from this negative interaction and disengage from users such as [User:Meters] in the future. I also will educate myself on the BLP rules and sourcing rules, and endeavor not to put too fine a point on such things in the future. I think I'll edit non-controversial things for a while to get some goodwill back, to be honest. :) Many thanks, again, for your time and attention. Gentlejackjones (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:51, 25 May 2016 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I never violated the BLP rule or participated in edit warring. After I originally edited the page for [The Hunger Games], [Suzanne Collins], and [The Hunger Games] (trilogy) with a section regarding the similarities between that work and [Battle Royale], another user edited out these changes. I read that user's thoughts regarding the inadequate sources for my original edits, and returned the content with better sourcing and a more neutral point of view. These changes were again removed from two of the three pages, and I did not replace them, instead using the talk pages as per Wikipedia policy. After being informed that my first edit (original edit) may be nearing the BLP violation line, I did not come close to violating BLP or any other rule. I certainly did not use editing as a way of "winning" any argument and do not view editing as a valid or reasonable means of doing so. This is a commons: third parties have no interest in, and are adversely affected by, such tactics. I did return content to another user's talk page when it was deleted, for which I apologize. I feel that situations like these may chill new users, prevent collaboration, and leave less-experienced editors wishing to "keep their heads down," which is exactly the opposite of the "Be Bold" policy endorsed by Wikipedia. Please keep Wikipedia a place where new contributors are welcomed, not brutalized, new content is thoughtfully considered, not brusquely rejected, and where the exchange of ideas is open and free, not closed and muted. I firmly pledge to learn from this negative interaction and disengage from such conflicts in the future. I also will educate myself on the BLP rules and sourcing rules, and endeavor not to put too fine a point on such things. I think I'll edit non-controversial things for a while to get some goodwill back, to be honest. :) Many thanks, again, for your time and attention. Gentlejackjones (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You edit-warred, you harassed another editor, you have persistently been uncivil to other editors, you have shown an arrogance towards other editors (it is deeply ironic that you accuse other editors of "imperiousness" and of being "unfriendly and hostile"). You show no awareness of those problems, and indeed continue to deny that you edit-warred. You continue to make unblock requests that attempt to blame others instead of accepting your own responsibility, the inclusion of minor Non-apology apology notwithstanding. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2016 (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.

You were blocked for edit-warring on Meter's talkpage and for filing a spurious and harassing complaint at AN3. Editors are allowed to moderate content on their own talkpages within certain limits, and posting the same message four times when the recipient has removed it is usually consider harassment. Your AN3 complaint involved a number of personal attacks against an editor who had correctly and politely confronted you about edits that made direct allegations of plagiarism against an author that were unsupported by sources, an obvious BLP violation. Blogs are not acceptable sources for controversial or potentially defamatory content no matter where they appear. The New York Times article merely noted parallels that are already described in the article on the book. Editors are required to confront such edits and are encouraged to aggressively remove them. Please read WP:BLP. Just because someone said something on the Internet does not make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, particularly when presented in Wikipedia's voice. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the user "correctly and politely confronted" me. The imperiousness of the original editor led to an unproductive interaction, imho. I've read BLP and pledge to conduct myself accordingly going forward. Gentlejackjones (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some imperiousness was called for. This warning [2] and this [3] were standard warnings at level 2 of 4 about a serious issue. A level 4 warning was added after you igored the first warning [4] and its follow-up [5] was appropriate and polite. The next comment was a reasonable objection to your actions on Meters' talkpage [6]. Some exasperation given your actions in posting lengthy copy/pasted lectures on how you think they should have responded is to be expected. The subsequent edit summary by you [7] is not acceptable. Meters has dealt with you far more patiently and politely than you have with them, and is backed up by policy. The issue is with your actions, which look worse now that I've looked into them in more detail. You may not casually throw around defamatory allegations in Wikipedia's voice and then harass those who seek to enforce the encyclopedia's policies. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Acroterion. I'll reflect on all that you have said and done. I'm not trying to be a problem editor, and I want to provide a value to the encyclopedia, not detract from it. Learning about the BLP rule and the standards for reliable sources-- especially in the BLP context-- has already allowed me a better perspective. I apologize for taking your time, necessitating an admin review, and for warring with Meters. I think I violated the 3RR regarding her talkpage, and in retrospect realize that I should have not have worried about posterity, and simply left it alone. I'm learning about how to be a better Wikipedia contributor, and this is part of that process. I'll make it up to the encyclopedia with articles about things that are not controversial, well-sourced additions to articles, etc. I don't like making enemies, and I don't want to make one with you (or Meters). I'm sure we have a lot more in common that whatever divides us. If I can help any article you may have a special liking for with mundane things like grammar, etc., I will do so (regardless of when I am unblocked). If I run into a potential conflict with another editor, I will take a step back, then take it to the talk pages with reasons for any discrepancies/differences of opinions. Funny side note: Yesterday, I googled "Biting Newbies" to try to get to the Wikipedia policy page on that, and got "Biking Newsies." That should be someone's username.Gentlejackjones (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

After Acroterion's explanation, I should have undone my second appeal request. I saw the fact that I could do it, but didn't want to change my page while blocked. Sorry JamesBWatson. I do realize that I edit-warred (3RR), and will not do so again. No qualifications to this apology. Gentlejackjones (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have reflected, and realize that I was in the wrong from the inception, and that Meters was actually not being rude, hostile, etc. The original edit ran afoul of BLP rules, and she/he correctly warned me of such. I would like to thank Meters and apologize to her/him for disrupting their day, especially their page, which I should not have childishly warred with. I retract all of my contentions about Meters, whose dedication to this site cannot be questioned and is, in a very real sense, a model to less-experienced editors, including me. I also apologize to Acroterion and the rest of the admins for taking time out of their busy and productive lives, "real" and virtual, and to thank them for only blocking me for two days. Y'all took the time to explain to me (really, teach me) about the correct working processes of Wikipedia and the responsibility that comes with being a contributor/editor, and provided me a chance to reflect on my rather shameful behavior. The earnestness of this statement can only be truly underscored by my future conduct, which I again pledge to be friendly and team-oriented. I can't give anyone back the time it took to deal with this episode, but I can express my sincere remorse at having caused it and progressing it past any reasonable point. This is a community, and as such, each of us has a reputation, and I certainly wish to attach an aura of integrity, kindness, and cooperation to the name "Gentlejackjones" for the rest of my editing career. Gentlejackjones (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)