User talk:Jtbobwaysf

This is Jtbobwaysf's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you so much for notifying for Kanika Batra article. I like your comment. Thanks for being transparent and reasonable. DAR (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uma medalha para você!

	A Medalha Surreal
	Thanks for Cryptocurrency bubble article. FML ^{talk - me at pt} 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you Rebecca jones (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rebecca jones Sincerely, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being a civil human being!

		The Civility Barnstar
		I have encountered a lot of hostility over the past couple weeks, both from editors and administrators, directed both at me and at others. Your willingness to engage with me, talk through my concerns, and assume WP:GOODFAITH rather than being hostile and uncivil has really helped take the edge off of the whole situation. I hope you continue to be an upstanding person and you stay with Wikipedia for a long time! Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MicahZoltu thanks! Please keep editing, you will get into the flow of the nuance over time. Sometimes you cant influece some articles much, others you can. All depends on the dynamics of each article. Julian Assange and other "AP2" (American politics) articles are examples, there are a lot of very political editors that will stonewall anything. As for crypto articles, it is quite easy to make changes as long as you have good sources. Some articles had more content in the past but got stripped back when people started to remove the non high-quality sources, and I would say in general the shape of the crypto articles have improved. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

meow

Jung008292 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice for Imelda Marcos

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[WP:ANI#Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos|Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos]]. The discussion is about the topic Imelda Marcos. Thank you. - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Imelda Marcos article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Imelda Marcos; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Stop removing valid external links. -Object404 (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imelda Marcos -> "don't do that" edit removal

Don't do what? -Object404 (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with saying stuff edit summaries that is highly misleading

I mostly ignored the end of your response at ANI until now as angered as I was about what you said in the earlier part. Having reading it, while I still find what you've done seriously wrong, I'll try to put that aside as much as possible and implore you directly to change. I have no real opinions about the article. As a BLPN regular I do agree no matter how distasteful someone is, we still need to comply with BLP although I also know such compliance could still mean an article is overwhelming negative but even that being the case, we still need to be on the lookout for problems.

But none of this excuses you using misleading summaries, which yes are basically lies. Such lies actually harm any attempts to comply with BLP and our other policies and guidelines. Instead of talking about stuff we should be, e.g. 'is this source good enough for a BLP', 'is what we say supported by the sources', 'are there enough other sources with a different view we are excluding?'; we instead waste time on silly things. I'm replying so late because I ignored that thread as I'd already spent a lot of time on it and although it's something that is important it's also completely silly.

It's silly because there was absolutely no reason you had to lie in your edit summary if you're here for the right reasons and I'm still assuming you are (hence this message). You could have simply used an accurate edit summary as I've tried to explain 3 times now. If you had done so, perhaps there would be discussion over actual issues with the article. But even if for some reason in a fit of madness you did leave that misleading edit summary, once challenged you could have quickly acknowledged, yes I was wrong. I should never have said the info "failed verification". Here's what the actual problem is... If that had happened the moment you were challenged on the Imelda Marcos talk page, again it's likely that things would be different. With either case, I'm not saying you wouldn't be facing a topic ban, there are other concerns with your editing. But who knows? At the very least it would have allowed discussion on these concerns to take place.

It sounds like your unsure if those 3 sources are sufficient for making the claim, especially in a BLP. That's a reasonable discussion even if some of the reasons you've given why you feel that way are perhaps not that well supported by our policies and guidelines. Yet the only way such discussion can happen, is if you actually articulate the problem. If you instead say "failed verification" and then persistently evade the question "did you actually read the sources?" which also means you can't properly explain what your concerns are, there is no way for this to happen. I myself hate to admit fault, but when you said something "failed verification" when you've never read any of the 3 sources, there's no two ways about it. You've made a major error.

"Failed verification" means I checked the source and it doesn't say that AFAICT. It doesn't mean whatever you meant by it, which actually after all this time, I'm still not sure. (As always, you can come up with edge cases like that I gave at ANI. Or even something like where the topic is the wealth of Imelda Marcos and the source is a biology text book. Although again it's still likely to be better to provide a more detailed explanation e.g. 'this a biology textbook, even if it mentions the wealth of Imelda Marcos, I don't think it's an RS for that'. Still I wouldn't care if it was such an edge case, and think few would.)

As I said at ANI, people should be able to trust what you say (within reason). Yet now every time I see an edit summary from you I'm going to have doubt. Every time I see you say something on the talk page, I'm going to wonder, is this really the truth? That makes editing with you very difficult.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification means the content is not verifiable. You will note there was already a section on the talk page relating to this billionaire POV. Next, I dont think my talk page is the correct venue to discuss sources. We will do that on the article or better yet on the ANI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with bitcoin cash

Can you share with me the reason for the split between BCH and BSV? I've googled and the answer seems political and vague, which isn't helpful. Surely there are a few concrete reasons for the split that we can give on the bitcoin cash article, right? I'm just lost in all this but want to improve the article. Any help/advice? LaceyUF (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaceyUF: I dont want to discuss why on my talk page as that would be WP:NOTFORUM. However, if you can find some good WP:RS that say the reason, we should for sure add it. Good RS are things like fortune, wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc. We cannot use blog type articles (such as forbes contributor articles). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this suffice? LaceyUF (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaceyUF:No, bitcoin.com is not an RS. It is a cryptocurrency news source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

No big deal because you didn't know, but don't ever modify threads in the archive. E Eng 14:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: ok, thank you for the info. didnt know that. should i revert, or just leave it as it is? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you don't modify or add to an archived thread is that it's a "frozen" record of a discussion. Once the thread goes to archive, no one's watching it so (a) no one's going to see what you wrote anyway, and (b) it looks like you said those things and everyone ignored it. As it happens, in this case someone wanted to continue the thread so I retrieved it from the archive and moved it back to WP:ANI, so everyone is, after all, seeing your added bits right now; so by good luck it's no harm, no foul. In normal cases the right thing to do would have been, as you said, to revert out your changes as if you'd never made them. E Eng 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for the clarification. Now I know. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]