User talk:JBW

This account was previously known as JamesBWatson, but was renamed to JBW on 19 September 2019. Neither James nor Watson is my real name. Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Pakdam Pakdai page protection possible?

Hi, JB. I'd like a second opinion for Pakdam Pakdai; I requested page protection eight days ago but it was rejected with the statement "warn the user appropriately". Which of these users are supposed to be warned?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: My apology for not responding to this at the time. I did what I annoyingly often do, which is leave it to deal with later, because I don't have time now, and then not come back to it. It's one of the symptoms of attention deficit syndrome, which has absolutely plagued me all my life. Anyway, as you probably know, it did eventually get protected, and FWIW I agree with you that it should have been done earlier. JBW (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: ... and for a longer period. JBW (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

West Ferris Secondary School

Hi, JB; just wanted to let you know that recently registered editors keep restoring the promotional content which you removed. West Ferris Secondary School is protected for now; you might want to do another removal.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I'm holding back from doing that, to reduce any risk of being seen as being INVOLVED if any further admin action becomes necessary. JBW (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

S'okay. I just initiated a SPI regarding the editor who started it all.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Explicit computable function

Regarding your recent edit of Sine and cosine, I think the work explicit should stay. In the context of computability, explicit means the value being computed is by itself on the left-hand side of the equation. If it were on both sides, and inseparable, the equation would be implicit and require a different class of algorithm.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anita5192: Of course you are right. I can't think what I was thinking of. I will revert my edit. Thanks for pulling me up on that mistake. JBW (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!—Anita5192 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

An apology for editing many unsourceful things

Look, I know you may not care and gonna block me. But I'm sorry for doing that, even for the last unsourceful edit in The Powerpuff Girls franchise. I didn't understand what I was doing, I never realized that. I know I was stupid to edit everything here. Please forgive me. I don't care if you're gonna block me if you're giving me another chance. I'm telling you this for no offenses, okay? I'm really sorry for this.. ArdaCoolestDude2009 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good work Nameless (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Previous Edit

Very new to editing wikipedia, but I know for a fact Kobbie Mainoo's height is 6 ft tall, not 5'9. Can you please help me incorporate this source into the wikipedia edit? https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5514522/2024/05/24/kobbie-mainoo-manchester-united-interview/. I was trying to cite it correctly but messed up Akthegreat789 (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Akthegreat789: My apologies. I searched for 183cm in the page you referenced, and didn't find it, but I now see it says "around 6ft (182cm)". In fact 6ft is closer to 183cm, the figure you gave. I have therefore restored your version, with the reference you gave. JBW (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What am I missing?

Hello! I would like to follow-up about your recent comments on my talk page. You expressed skepticism that I actually understand the reason for the block, and I am still unclear about what was lacking in my request. I understand that there were a variety of reasons for my block, some of which are detailed in a recent peer-reviewed article (section "Editor removal as erasure"). Could you please let me know what you would like me to acknowledge before being unblocked? Is it that other editors perceived me as a SJW? That American nationalists opposed my proposed content? That I sometimes express my opposition to administrative actions? I am sincerely trying to better understand what you expect from me, and I would appreciate a response.  — Freoh 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, just a few days ago, you also called another editor being blocked for sockpuppetry as disruptive, again linking a paper written accusing Wikipedia of colonial erasure. [1] You have repeatedly said 331dot "misunderstood" your actions, but it appears to me that they understood just fine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

I have read this message, and I have put some time into checking the relevant history, and I have a general idea of an answer, but for several reasons at present I am not ready to compose that answer. I'll try to get back to you as soon as I reasonably can. JBW (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Freoh: Sorry to keep you waiting, but I am now able to write a few comments which I hope will clarify things a little.

When I read your message above, my first thought was that I doubted whether I could say anything new to help you, which hadn't already been said to you, either on your talk page or in any of the various discussions that have taken place on other pages. However, I checked through the history, and I have selected some examples which seem to me to encapsulate the problems which have led to the block.

• Consider your post at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science&diff=prev&oldid=1142015309#Neutral_origins_in_lead in which you wrote "Headbomb is asserting the superior importance of white people while arguing that it's not because they're white". In fact Headbomb had said nothing of the kind: what he had said was "I couldn't give a shit about the color of their skin, but yes, the ancient Greeks are that important to the history of science". Misrepresenting what others say to serve your purpose of promoting your personal view is unconstructive, and is certainly one of the factors which have contributed to the block.
• You had some excellent advice from Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, and you said to her "Wow, thank you! I did not expect so much help, and I really appreciate your attention. I will mull this over for a bit before attempting another appeal". However, what you have done since here is very different from what she said. You may find it helpful to re-read what she wrote to you, re-read what you have written above, and think about why I see it that way. The following comments about what you have written here may help to indicate the kinds of things I have in mind.
• You start out by phrasing your message as a courteous request for clarification: "I am still unclear about what was lacking in my request", etc, and ask me to "please let [you] know what [I] would like [you] to acknowledge before being unblocked". You then go on to ask me such things as whether an answer is for you to "acknowledge" such things as that American nationalists opposed your proposed content, and that you sometimes express my opposition to administrative actions. With the best will in the world, you cannot believe that if you had said those things in your unblock request I would have accepted the request; that is, as you know full well, not what I, the blocking administrator, or any other administrator has indicated is the reason for the block. It is your claim as to what the reason is, and you give it not as a constructive suggestion as to what may be the answer to "Could you please let me know what you would like me to acknowledge before being unblocked?" but as a polemical statement of your view, in opposition to the contrary view which you know is held by the administrators concerned. There we have both a passive aggressive message, and misrepresentation of a view as mine when you know it is yours.
• Those are just a few of examples to illustrate some of the problems with your editing, not an exhaustive coverage. I don't think any useful purpose would be served by cataloguing a long list of them, because there is plenty of documentation of the problems in other pages, which you have seen, and in most if not all cases where you have yourself commented. If those examples were all there were to it then you would not be blocked, but it is far from all there is to it. You have persisted with countless examples, sometimes at great length, with a dogged refusal to drop a matter when you have said far more than enough to make your point, and when you have known full well that consensus is solidly against you.
• It seems to me that there are in fact two fundamental problems, which lie behind those I have mentioned and others. The first one is that you absolutely cannot see anyone else's point of view. Whenever you see someone express an opinion which you think is wrong, you attribute to them particular evil motives, usually with no evidence at all other than your assumption as to what must motivate someone to hold the view in question. I will give you just one example. You have accused the administrators you have disagreed with of, amongst other things, acting out of "American exceptionalism". I can assure you that nowhere on earth is there anyone more solidly opposed to American exceptionalism than I am. I regard it as totally vicious and evil. To impute that motive to me is absurdly wide of the mark; I also see no evidence that it is true of any of the other administrators you have accused of the same. The second of the two fundamental problems, it seems to me, is your apparent inability to know when to stop.

I have no idea whether you will find those remarks helpful or not, but I have put in the time and effort it took to think them out and write them down in the hope that you will find at least some of them helpful. I hope you will think of what I have said, and consider whether you can see them as constructive attempt to clarify the issues. It would be a pity if, after I have taken the trouble to make this attempt to help, you were to just take it as yet another example of all the kinds of things that you have been accusing various people of; I hope you won't. JBW (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this your account?

Hi JBW, sorry to bother you but is JameslWatson your account? I noticed that their only edit so far is a barnstar on Helloidonthaveaname's talk page. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: No, it's nothing to do with me. Looks highly dubious. JBW (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: [2] JBW (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)