User talk:Jensbest

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Donald Trump

Hi Jens. Re the first sentence of this edit, I just want to say that sometimes foreign editors can make huge contributions to articles about U.S. politics. For instance, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, about the most contentious piece of U.S. legislation in decades, was brilliantly written and brought to Good Article status (a major feat) largely by a single editor from the U.K. with some advice and feedback from a handful of editors from the U.S. (including me). Foreign editors are sometimes the best at contentious U.S. politics articles because they tend to be more neutral. I know Trump inflames a lot of passions in Europe, so maybe that doesn't apply to his article, I don't know. But the point is that if you have ideas for how to improve Donald Trump or other U.S. politics articles, please don't disqualify yourself due to your nationality. Your contributions are welcomed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Juergen Boos

As near as I can tell, this website has existed since 2015, while Draft:Juergen Boos has only existed since Feb 2017. Second, Drafts are not indexed, which means that someone would have to know exactly where the draft was located in order to even consider copying from here to there. Third, if they really did copy from Wikipedia (again, highly unlikely) then they did not follow proper copyright rules by acknowledging their source. Given that the first two points are much more likely than the third, I'm disinclined to reinstate copyrighted text. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor FBM Wikipedia IS the Wikipedia-Account of the Frankfurter Buchmesse of which Juergen Boos is CEO. They put the basic informations text in the draft, therefore they are fine that this text which is used also on other websites is used in Wikipedia under cc-by-sa. There is NO copyright-violation, because the owner of the rights put this basic information text about Boos in Wikipedia. Also the basic text from FBM Wikipedia was later edited by me and other editors (Wikilinks, some rewrites to clarify certain aspects). Therefore and because I'm now waiting for over one MONTHS to review and move this draft of a completely fine small article into the article arrea I would appreciate you review the article having all the informations now today again. --Jensbest (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there were zero references in the section I removed, the overall reason for my decline (lack of suitable sources) would still be valid. Now you have an opportunity to add back that material with sources that verify the statements being made. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I need the last version of the deleted content. Please send it to me via Wiki-Mail. Thanks, --Jensbest (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was copied directly from the site linked above, you have the content. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely different because I edited it after it was written by user:FBM Wikipedia. Can you sent the last version of the deleted section to me per Wikimail? --Jensbest (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you, they are nearly identical. One sentence on the original was split into two sentences on Wikipedia, and that is the only difference. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's your problem? Just sent me the last version via Wikimail. I don't wanna redo any edit, so why don't you just sent me the last deleted version of the section? --Jensbest (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to redo the edit, then why do you need the exact text from the draft? Here's the exact text. No email needed. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we have a language problem: I did some work on this section after the basic text (which may be similiar to the turkish website) and I don't wanna do this work again, because it was quite difficult to check all the additional jobs and titles of the person (and to see if some of that is already avaiable on wikipedia). SO please sent me the last version of the deleted section, so that I don't have to do this time-consuming work again additionally to the now needed more third-party-sources (and some re-writing so that it is not at all a copyright violation (which it never was in the beginning). Are you please mailing me the last version? Thankyou, --Jensbest (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of the wikilinks in the removed text:

Enjoy. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Jensbest (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Juergen Boos (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Only one reference (faz.net) goes into any detail about Boos, and even that is rather thin coverage. Everywhere else he is mentioned in passing simply because he's involved in some dust-ups with the Book Fair. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Juergen Boos and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right great wrongs

You might be right, but we cannot allow wp:or to determine article content, not mattr ho much you might want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we are governed by polcies that must apply to all, thus wp:blp prevents us from reating what may be polrticaly motivated attacks. If we treat anyone diffent becuasee of who they are (and our opinions of them) we are in fact as bas as the people we attack. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR, Opinion etc. - all you say does not touch the fact that Trump is fascistic. If something is fascistic, it is neutral and correct to write that it is fascistic. It is even NOT neutral not to write it. But I understand that discussing this here is useless and a waste of time. When time comes, we will take care of the data stored on servers in the US and transfer it to an area where it is not in danger to be destroyed by a fascistic government. Also, I am sure that Germany will be open for people fleeing the US because it became unsafe for them and their loved ones. The former newspaper Washington Post had a subtitle "Democracy Dies in Darkness", well, no, obvious it dies in broad daylight. --Jensbest (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will be under threat because WP:USAFASCISTICUNDERTRUMP, fwiw. --Jensbest (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There is a poem of Bertold Brecht called "Lob des Zweifels" (In Praise of Doubt"). Here is a part of it translated:

[…]

The unquestioning who never doubt

Meet the doubtful who never act.

They do not doubt in order to come to a decision, but

To avoid the decision. Heads

They only use them to shake. With a worried expression

They warn the occupants of sinking ships of the water.

Under the axe of the murderer

They wonder if he is not also human.

With the murmured remark

That the matter has not yet been investigated, they climb into bed.

Their activity consists of wavering.

Their favorite word is: not ready to speak.

[…]

--Jensbest (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but we are still governed by our policies. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it from afar, policies will be moved aside with Project 2025 etc. - But I do now better understand the history of my country in the dawn of Hitler's powergrab (he was elected, too): You look directly in the eyes of evil and your mind still not wanna see what it sees. It is in a disturbing way fascinating to follow a contemporary adaption of a in theory well learned known dark past. --Jensbest (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what in the context here? --Jensbest (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning stop using talk pages and notice boards as a political platform. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not using it as a "political platfom", I'm using it to bring attention to some facts, mainly that Trump is behaving like a fascist and that this broadly detected and sourced important fact is obviously kept out of the lead in the Trump article. And therefore the article is not neutral, because it is NOT giving this vital information to the readers in the lead. --Jensbest (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not over at RSN you are not. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your community-imposed topic-ban from Donald Trump.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban and links to discussions relating to it can be found here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensbest (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I had a discussion on the Talkpage of the article Donald Trump. Apparently I had an Topic Bloc for the Donald Trump article from 2016 which I didn't remember and also there was no information from the system reminding my of that topic bloc from eight years ago. I'm not much at all editing in the English Wikipedia but in other language. Now, out of the blue without any reminder the Admin Rosguill blocked me indefinitely. Firstly this block is endangering my work in other projects in the wikiverse and secondly a short reminder that I have a eight(!) year old topic bloc for the article Donald Trump would have been WP:AGF - If somebody would have reminded me of that topic ban I would have stopped my contribution to the article discussion. I can assure that I will not edit Donald Trump or the talk page in the future - I can't even stand this man and surely will not endanger the functionality of my old and established account in the wikiverse because of this guy's article. I just forgotten that eight years ago I got a topic ban in the enWP for the article Donald Trump. If the admin would have reminded me before doing his drastic and imho not fair blocking out of the blue(!) than I would had obstained from editing or discussing this person's article. Therefore I ask to undo the blocking which is imho possible with some usage of AGF. I just totally forgot the topic ban for this article from eight years ago. Thanks Jensbest

Jensbest (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's no information from the system reminding you of your topic ban because you removed it. It's not an admin's job to keep track of it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Topic Bloc is eight years ago(!). As I am not editing a lot in the enWP, I apologize for not keeping track of that topic ban. Just because I deleted the information eight years ago on my user talk page I would have maybe edited on the article talk page, too After eight years somethings can be forgotten or overseen. I would have not edited on the talk page if I would have remembered that topic ban. An indefinetely blocking after eight years is not really AGF. I have done nothing wrong apart from just forgetting the topic ban. Surely now I will remember that longer, but the indefinetely blocking is a not fair imho overreacting which is also endangering other work of mine in the wikiverse. For having a talk after eight years a indefinetely blocking is imho not AGF. --Jensbest (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensbest, how exactly does this block at the English Wikipedia endanger your work at other wikis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and Jpgordon: It seems obvious to me that the edits were made in good faith after having forgotten about the topic ban, as much as it was a mistake that they were mede. But are you aware of partial blocks which could be implemented for the given article(s) or a subcategory of Category:Politics by century, for example, so that the ban would be enforce temporarily or indefinitely without fully blocking the editor from everything? In my opinion as a local administrator, a full indefinite block after this one edit made in good faith after 8 years without any misconduct is a bit overshot. — What do you think about this solution? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st century in American politics might cover a lot of the relevant articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want some acknowledgement of not only the ban but also an understanding of issues with WP:RGW, WP:NOTFORUM. It wasn't just that the ban was violated, it's that the ban was violated to make a string of polemics on talk pages that had zero chance of resulting in anything but a timesink. This wasn't an accidental violation by means of a good faith edit to an article, this was exactly the behavior that precipitated the ban in the first place _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then talk pages (in these categories) could be blocked, including a conduct warning not to violate the before-mentioned rules outside of these including clarity on next steps when this wouldn't be respected. Maybe including an enddate—because admin actions after 8 years really feel a bit odd. Thankfully, our repository of admin tools, filters, etc. gives us much more options for dealing with problematic edits instead of using the easiest way of an indefinite block. What are your thoughts on finding a good compromise here? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page blocks in isolation are inherently problematic because this can prevent editors from engaging in necessary discussion while editing. Rather than engineering a convoluted software-based solution, I would like to see Jensbest acknowledge and move past NOTFORUM behavior. Moreover, I want to stress that the 8 year stretch is a point against Jensbest, not in their favor: I don't care so much about them forgetting that a ban was in place, but rather that they've exhibited an identical, consistent, unconstructive attitude towards the use of talk pages that has remained consistent despite an ANI thread, a tban, and 8 years of time. Meanwhile, their forays into other topics in the intervening timespan shows that this isn't limited to 21st century US politics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]