User talk:JTGILLICK

Welcome!

Strange loop

Thanks for your recent additions to Strange loop. However, as these were unsourced, or personal research of your own, I reverted them according to Wikipedia policy. Take a look at WP:OR and WP:VERIFY for information on how to avoid original research, and how to cite sources. In particular, your claim that these things constitute strange loops needs to be verifiable. Cheers, Doctormatt 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

questioning the basis for deletions made

Thanks for the welcome, the tips and the guidelines references. Being new, there are no doubt many solecisms I have, am, and soon will be committing until I get my chops. It's always good to be offered well-meaning assistance.

In regard to your reasons for the broad-brush deletion of my contribution, some questions immediately spring to mind - all of the “please be more specific in your objections” variety. Let me lay them out ...

In offering up the general statement that SF time-travel paradox stories are built on strange loops, I believe I made sufficient reference to acceptable - and accepted - material/sources; to wit,

1. For my specific examples I cite specific stories by Bester and Heinlein - with both authors being recognized as masters of the genre, and both stories being recognized as classics within it. I also link to the current Eikipedia entries on BESTER, HEINLEIN, and "ALL YOU ZOMBIES --". Ifv Wiki[pedia itself does not suffice as a reliable source, the whole operation may be slipping into a streange loop of its own, don't you think? Therefore, if these citations do not suffice for verifiability/reference/citation/NOR, please delienate (with some specific detail) how they fail or are insufficient.

2. The general statement of how time-travel paradoxes are strange loops - from which my specifics flow - derives directly from the content of the current strange loop article itself ; to wit,

    a) "Strange loops may involve self-reference and paradox" - in first paragraph. 

    b) “ ‘... an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop.’ “ (Hofstadter, as quoted in the article.)

To break this out in even more detail: the time-travel paradox stories I offer up as examples (again, as referenced to Wiki entries) meet Hofstadter’s criteria exactly - in that forward (or “upward) motion in “subjective time” (the traveler’s sense of his personal time) passing at normal rate as he transports backwards in time) actually shifts him backward (downward) in “objective time”. This is quite obviously ...

    (a) the “cycling-around” - in these case cycling around in a time sequence,
    (b) the “shift from one level of abstraction to another”,
    (c) “feels like an upward (forward) movement in a hierarchy (in these cases, the hierarchy of sequential time), 
    (d) “gives rise to a closed cycle” - specifically, the so-called “time-loops” that are the core of time-paradox SF stories. 

And so, my question to you (here restated): if all my references/citations are to/from material extant in Wikipedia, how exactly do they violate or fail to meet the standards laid out in WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. As in your comment there is some suggestion (implied, underlying, not specified or overt) that Wikipedia itself is not a suitable source or reference, I again request some specificity regarding to what degree the material entered does not meet criteria (or form).

Finally, absent such specifics, I would suggest that you might have done better in this matter to have placed the “citation needed” tag where you felt such citations were required (and absent). This seems to have sufficed for the two popular culture paragraphs that preceded mine.

JTGILLICK 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interest in Kirkland College?

I'm not in complete agreement with your stated reason for deleting my edit. It is a fact that the AMP Subcommittee is working on a history of Kirkland College for inclusion of Prof. Isserman's update of the history of Hamilton College. I will endeavor to edit the entire KC wiki page, because indeed it is unduly negative. Are you affiliated in some way with Hamilton?

Zulurox (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Class of 1972. Are you affiliated in some way with Kirkland?

JTGILLICK (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To make things clear, here is a breakdown of why the material in that section was unsuitable for a Wikipedia article:

The phrase "This summary is incomplete" is a statement of opinion. It is perfectly suitable for the discussion page; it is in no way suitable for the main article page. Even if it could be referenced as a definitive opinion by major figures in the field (what field?), with reference citations to publish or otherwise publicly in generally distributed material supporting the opinion - it would still be an opinion - and as such, would have to be delineated as such in the text. (Example: "it is believed by a number of reliable sources such as [CITED SOURCE] that ... etc."). And even then it would not be suitable for the article on Kirkland College proper, because it would not be about Kirkland College - about the Wikipedia article on Kirkland College.

The phrase "unduly focuses on recent controversies." is, again, simply an expression of an opinion, unsupported by reference or citation. Again, it belongs on the discussion page - not in the article proper.

re: "The Archives, Media and Publications Subcommittee of the Committee for Kirkland College will be revamping this entry", this is a statement about something that may be done in the future by an organization separate from Kirkland College. It's nice that someone may (or may not) be doing this and may (or may not) get it done; however, it is not about the college per se. Possible future matters/action/activities/achievement/accomplishments/whatevers pertaining to Kirkland College will be suitable for inclusion in the article (possibly) when they take place - not before.

re: The phrase"as it writes a more definitive history of Kirkland College" fails in two respects. First, it is again a statement about a future possibility, not an existent fact; second, it rests on an unsupported expression of an opinion.

For these reasons, intuitively obvious to the casual observer, I moved the material to where it belongs - on the discussion page. JTGILLICK (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"intuitively obvious to the casual observer"?

I'm not so sure about that. This Wikipedia entry-making and editing seems to me to be pretty arcane. Granted, I am a novice, and frankly I have no intention or interest in going any further. Just trying to protect Kirkland College's good name. And if you are a Hamiltonian, you are well aware of just how much Kirkland's name has suffered in the fairly recent past, as well as the distant past. Zulurox (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Just trying to protect Kirkland College's good name."

Well, isn't that exactly the problem with your attempts to manage the page? You bring a personal agenda to your edits and attempt to impose that agenda. Dictionary.com can help you: look up "agenda", "bias", "propaganda". "objectivity", "disinterested". Examination and consideration of these concepts will assist you in coming to an understanding of how your editorial impositions were inappropriate.

And, yes - "intuitively obvious" - most definitely. The phrase referred to the nature of your errors and not to the processes of Wikipedea These processes are neither arcane nor obscure; they are laid out almost everywhere - and can be easily referenced on the appropriate policy and procedure pages. In fact, you need just refer to the pages cited in the first comment - criticizing one of my contributions to Wikipedia - at the top of this page.

Try them.

JTGILLICK (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know

I'm sorry, but I would have to say that in comparative word count, the Ward Churchill/Susan Rosenberg entry outweighed much of the rest of the discussion. To me, that seems rather biased. To be sure, they were facts, but very heavily weighted to get across a particular point of view, which to anyone reading it, is negative, i.e., biased.Zulurox (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"... word count ... outweighed much of the rest of the discussion ..."

At some point a section may grow so large as to deserve its own page. But mere weight of attention does not in and of itself demonstrate bias. The issue is the content. Demonstrate (not just assert) the bias as manifest in content and you have a workable argument. Otherwise ...

"... to me, that seems rather biased ..."

"seeming" is not sufficient. Again, mere assertion.

"... facts ... heavily weighted ..."

an opinion. support it with analysis/explication of what the supposed weighting is, how it is done, if you please.

if you want the article to improve, try this: Demonstrate the bias, by example and explication. Then rewrite the section so that it fully conveys the same content in a more objective mode. Then put that out there for review by your/our peers. JTGILLICK (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm Amaury. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User:ClueBot NG/Documentation, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Amaury (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

ClueNet

Hi, I've removed your comments from the talk page of ClueNet per WP:NOTFORUM. If you are concerned for whatever reason, with the operation of User:ClueBot NG and other bots on Wikipedia, you can take it to the village pump. -SFK2 (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that you have a legitimate concern about the operation of bots on Wikipedia, see talk pages of WP:BOT and WP:BOTPOL. Continued additions may be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE and may be met with sanctions. -SFK2 (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:ClueNet . 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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; 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MATERIALSCIENTIST: You don't seem to understand your own position, your own argument. The issue is not the content of the ClueNet article - the issue is SFK2’s repeated censorship of the article’s Talk Page. He is repeatedly attempting to suppress the very discussion you say we should be undertaking; cf, your “If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss” (emphasis added).

Next time, please take the trouble of familiarizing your self with a situation before indulging in reflexive admonition. (I also notice that you leave no corresponding message about edit waring on SFK2’s talk page. Would this be indicative of a personal interest? Of a personal agenda?)

When I see you taking note of SFK2’s repeated censorship, I will begin to take your comments seriously. Not before. JTGILLICK (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to familiarize yourself with a situation to know that a user is edit-warring. - Amaury (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? A rather unpersuasive hymn to willful ignorance, that. Most likely exactly not what W needs.(note, due to overlapping edits, this response to A, above, was misplaced for a few minutes. Apologies, JD) JTGILLICK (talk)

To be fair, this is not the kind of edit war this notice was really designed for. The notice is mainly intended for disputes about the content of the article itself. It's still edit warring if the reverts are done on an article talk page, but I will have to say that different procedures should be followed. In this case, I would've done the discussion about the reverts on the other user's talk page instead. However, I must agree with SFK2. Unless it is related to improving the article itself, discussions about something should be forwarded to the proper channels. In this particular case, Wikipedia:Village pump may have a place for you to discuss about the bot - it's just that an article talk page isn't appropriate for such a discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a question of the validity of your views on the bot. It's about on-topicness. You appear to be concerned with ClueBot in its role as a Wikipedia bot, not the content of the ClueNet article, so that's why the article talk page isn't the right channel for this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Talk Page section on ClueBot is exactly the proper place to engage the article's presentation of what the group and the bot are and do. That this overlaps or replicates an in-Community discussion on the issue of ClueBot’s deployment is unavoidable.

Yes, the specific matter of how the W community should engage the issue of ClueBot editing/vandalism should be raised in other venues directly. It will be.JTGILLICK (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is primarily about the network, not the bot. If you have issues with the article's contents, make specific suggestions about what to change (although I will caution you that your point of view will likely not achieve consensus from other editors).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That the article overall is not primarily about the bot does not obviate the utility of discussion of that section of the material. I appreciate your stubborn defense of your position, but you need a more substantive argument. (btw, projecting some imagined future consensus in the apparent hope of discouraging me from continuing to engage the issue? Not persuasive.)JTGILLICK (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-SFK2 (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I agree this matter should go up the chain - the sooner and further the better.JTGILLICK (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:DE, edit warring, possibly compromised account.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Absent any discussion/communication whatsoever other than this notice, it is difficult to respond to what appears to be an inordinately precipitous unilateral action.

1. Please specify the edits you consider “destructive”;

2. Please delineate how the edits you specify conform to Wikipedia policy on DE;

3. Please delineate your reasoning/conclusions that led you to placing this block;

4. Please explain why you placed the block without discussion.

JTGILLICK (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JTGILLICK, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amaury (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, should you go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JTGILLICK, this incident has been closed due to the complete lack of indications (much less evidence) that I have ever been involved in sock-puppetry.

In consideration of this, your actions, it appears this is the proper time to raise the question of whether or not you are using Wikipedia processes to harass other users/editors (in courtroom procedure, I suppose this would be termed “barratry”(look it up in Wikipedia?)). You will be properly notified when/as the formal complaint is put forward.

JTGILLICK (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion was at ANI, but blocking doesn't require discussion anyway. The SPI case didn't say you were innocent, it said it wasn't obvious. It was moot since you were already indef blocked for disruption and other reasons, something you seem to be justifying further here. I'm not inclined to reconsider the block based on what I've seen here, so will leave it in the best judgement of any reviewing admin. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 20:29, 31 May 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Following the procedures/suggested procedures laid down in the Guide to Appealing Blocks, I'll just use the headings as template to lay down my argument ... re 2.1 Understand what you did and why you have been blocked This is difficult. The administrator imposed the block without raising any issues with me beforehand, without discussing the matter, and without stating reasons after the block was imposed. Further, when I asked on my talk page (only page I can add to, currently, of course) why the reasons for this seemingly precipitate action were, I was informed, that he felt he need not give any reason. (see above on talk page) My current assumption is that the block was imposed on request/complain t by another editor who block-deleted a comment I made on the talk page for CLUENET. Since user took it upon himself to block-delete without discussion, the comment was re-posted. This went one more round, then it was agreed (at least I agreed - see talk page) that the matter would best be resolved on higher editor/administrator levels. re 2.2 Give a good reason for your unblock The reasons given with the block itself were (1) DE (2) “edit warring” (3) possible compromised account. I’ll address each individually, in order: - regarding the first rationale for he block, DE: :Unless I'm completely mistaking the origins of this block, I can say outright that no editing of any article was involved. The dispute over my comment on the talk page took entirely place on talk pages - and most of it, almost all of it, on my own talk page. In respect of the article on which I was commenting, I did no editing of any kind, “destructive” or otherwise. Further, reviewing my own history, I would dispute any charge of destructive editing on my part in any article I've addressed over the years. - regarding the second rationale, edit warring: :A comment I made on a talk page (not any edit on an article, was block-deleted without discussion. I reverted it; it was re-reverted. After this cycle, it having been made clear there would be no discussion on either the article’s talk page or my own I concluded, as can be seen from my talk page, that the matter be resolved on another letter. Does this rise to DE? I would suggest not - if only because it did not involved editing, it involved talk page disagreement. - regarding the third rational, possibly compromised account: :as can be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JTGILLICK there is no indication whatsoever that my account has been compromised or that I have engaged in sock-puppet activity. Indeed, the only support for the accusation appears to be “Contributions are a lot alike” by Amaury - without any clarification of what comments, on what subject/issue, or where posted. ::(I would have addressed this matter on the investigation page itself, but the current block renders that not possible at this time) re 2.2.2 Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block) :I can't address the administrator’s concerns in any detail, because, as said above, other than the statement on the block notice itself, the administrator has declined to address or reveal them. As to addressing the three specifics from the block notice, doing so here would just repeat what I’ve given above. Conclusion: If I have indeed engaged in destructive editing (by Wikipedia standards), I'd appreciate instruction on where and how I’ve done so. Absent some demonstration of that, I argue here that this block was precipitate, arbitrary, and unnecessary. JTGILLICK (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The Guide also suggests that you review your own behaviours first and be honest. It's obvious by your edits that you have been disruptive and have also been edit-warring. For example:

1. This is pure and outright vandalism
2. This is encouraging outright vandalism
3. Your edits to Gettysburg (2011 film) have constituted edit-warring, as was your edit-war on ClueNet

As such, it would be disingenuous of you to suggest you've done nothing against policies (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:44, 1 June 2013 (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.