You've had the DS alert, your rhetoric has not toned down in any meaningful way, you're now topic banned from the ark encounter article. I won't extend this further than that one article at this point, but it remains an option and other admins may choose to do so independently. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Not that it matters so much, since it looks like jps is about to be blocked upon request, but it doesn't look like he's edited at all since the topic ban proposal was closed with no action? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Hey, J - I just read Wikipedia:Editors will sometimes be wrong, an essay you created in 2008. Are you willing to incorporate some of the major points in the sections "Are you wrong?" and "What to do when you're right" into WP:AVDUCK?? My choice for the additions would be the sections, "Examine your edits" and "Avoid confrontation". Another question - I think it would be beneficial if a few more projects were involved, and the first that comes to mind is WP:WikiProject Integrity since some of their members participated in the peer review a while back. Your thoughts? Do any another projects come to mind? Atsme📞📧 16:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme: You are, of course, free to do what you will with that essay which looks much different than the form I initially penned. Everything is released under a share-and-share-alike content and so as long as there is an annotation, go ahead and keep building, I say! jps (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is a list somewhere of the AfDs that can serve as "precedent" including, of course, the J. Barnett saga and a few others. My argument has always been that the general rule for accepting a prodigy as article-worthy would be serious (as in not off-hand comments) engagement by the epistemic communities in which prodigious achievement is claimed. For example, if the claim is that the child is a prodigy in mathematics, there should be some evidence that the child has actually published in the requisite journals. If the child is claimed to be a prodigy in music, there should be some evidence of performance at the level of a professional achievement that would normally apply to musicians (or a recording contract). Etc. jps (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I have never seen you visibly edit on any article on fabulous creatures whatsoever, so I don't know what sort of ideas you have.
But when you revert an article (Mokele-mbembe) to a purged version, don't just tell us you think Bloodofox's edit is superior, as that gives us no indication as to specifically what underlying reasoning you yourself have to make you think the purge is justified.
You need to take responsibility for your own edits, and be able to articulate the reasons why you think the 32kbytes of content merits removal. You can't just say this other guy did it and you agree with him. Thank you. --Kiyoweap (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CONSENSUS. I have read your arguments and the other arguments, read both versions, and I have made my conclusion. jps (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please stop edit-warring on this without demonstrating you've read any of the source material to make a decision on your own as to what is WP:DUE content or not.
- Do not make drive-by visits to WP:FT/N and read a couple of postings on threads and imagine yourself to be able to make a well-considered decision. That is not responsible editing behavior in Wikipedia.
- Specifically, tell me how you yourself justify the "conclusion" you have reached that the expeditions of Powell and Mackal should be eliminated altogether. These are quite central to the topic. They are described at length even in Prothero's critical even antagonistic treatment of the topic in Abominable Science. --Kiyoweap (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
- Because of off-wiki harassment. jps (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I see you've had some interest in what to do with the Skylab mutiny article. In an attempt to address concerns brought forth on its talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Skylab_mutiny, I have prepared a draft of a substantially different article on the same topic at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. I think it's nearly ready to go, and I would appreciate your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Aquatic ape hypothesis
Dear ජපස, @JzG: and @Jps: and just in that action I have shown my ignorance of coding and wiki etiquette! Anyway my question is concerning your signatures; can an editor use two signatures at the same time, and it seems to me in the same conversations, and for what reason. My concern, being honest, was that yet another disruptive editor flying by Aquatic ape hypothesis following some article / publicity / etc, (in this case an action which, at first glance, I doubt, but will, when I can, check what changes have happened), and editing what has taken many many editors a very long time to get to a reasonably informative and balanced state as it is. Am happy for either / all to reply. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 11:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is your confusion over the fact that I had to switch usernames? If so, I apologize. It did not have to do with the AAH article. jps (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
ජපස or jps
Hi. Another editor saw fit to remove both my comments and yours, but I found your response, nonetheless; thank you. I am, in fact, curious, but not savvy about technical issues. Sometime in the past I figured out how to sign my name YoPienso instead of Yopienso, which is my official user name. Now I can't find any of that stuff again. To me, that's a slight, unconfusing difference--changing one lower-case letter to upper case. However, I did not recognize ජපස as your initials in another language since I'm ignorant of that language. I wondered if they were characters of some alphabet or script unknown to me, or if they were some kind of emoji or decoration. I never imagined when I saw comments signed with ජපස and other comments signed with jps that one and the same person made them. This gave the appearance of two people holding the same opinions; in other words, it gave the appearance of a false consensus between two different individuals. Hence, my comment about sockpuppetry. I would think this could be confusing to other WP editors, too. You would likely become frustrated trying to explain to me how you have only one signature while I clearly "believe I see" two, so no need to trouble yourself with it. Very best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you care to respond to this? You may have missed it in the shuffle. Wrt your allegations, indeed I'm claiming that there is wide agreement that this movie is a documentary, and I provided links to the sources. Do you dispute that? YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC) YoPienso (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)