User talk:Jack4576

Your edit to Black War

Hello there

I have reverted your edit to the lead of the article as it is not an accurate summary of the article and is wrong on some points (the sources used in the article show that many of those arguing that the black war wasn't genocide were writing in the 21st century). It is also doubtful that it is written from a neutral point of view. The existing wording of the lead summarises the article much more concisely. I am happy to discuss on the Talk page of the article to see if we can get consensus over the wording of the lead.

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "It is also doubtful that it is written from a neutral point of view". Are you casting doubt upon my neutrality as an editor? That is inappropriate.

The existing wording suggests to the reader that there is an ongoing "debate" about the genocide, that is contradicted by the sources which demonstrate an academic consensus that a genocide took place (albeit this is a consensus that is contested by some). Jack4576 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources do not demonstrate any such consensus. Quite a few experts in the field argue that it was not a genocide as the article makes clear. This isn't a fringe view, so no consensus. Why don't you start a discussion on the Talk page of the article and see if other editors wish to comment? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That position is a fringe view. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your recent editing history at Black War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. General Ization ^Talk 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. I restored my edit after an interim consensus was reached on the talk page.

Your message here is inappropriate. You'd be better served by posting this message on the other editor's talk page. 05:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Jack4576 (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't post it there because they are following policy. Continue and we will take it up at WP:EWN. General Ization ^Talk 05:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy is plainly incorrect. Nominate to EWN at your leisure. Jack4576 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.; Thank you.

Per your request, [1]. Jack you are your own worst enemy.  // Timothy :: talk  06:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous Timothy. I did not 'request' that a nomination be made. The reason for me saying "nominate at your leisure" was that this is clearly not an example of edit warring. As it is clearly not an example of that, I don't fear a nomination at that notice board. I am not even in breach of 3RR. This nomination is trigger-happy.

The reason this is clearly not an example of edit warring; is that I only reverted the other user's edit after an interim consensus had been reached, following your comment on the article's talk page indicating my drafting of the article had found majority support following discussion.

I refrained from restoring the edit an additional, third time, after comments from additional editors showed that in fact, a consensus had not been reached. Which reversion of mine is an example of edit warring? There isn't one.

I did not engage in a further reversion after making this comment. So your comment: on "Apparently the only way to get their attention is a post to EWN" is not only snide, but also plainly incorrect. I stopped further reversions, and I am not in breach of the 3RR.

Finally, your remark: "you are your own worst enemy" is uncivil, and inappropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You say that I had "they have no intention of stopping", and yet, I did in fact stop.

Just because I stated a disagreement with General Ization's interpretation of policy; and stated a disagreement that a edit war nomination was justified; doesn't mean or imply that I intend to pursue an edit war.

Clearly from the edit history and talk discussion of that page; you can see that I have stopped reverting other editors and am attempting to reach consensus before making any other edits. Jack4576 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Could you please copy-paste my two comments above, as a response to your nomination on that board. Jack4576 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll rephrase. Jack you are absolutely your own worst enemy.

And you forgot to format your unblock request.  // Timothy :: talk  07:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a rude comment, and you ought to be censured by the community for making it.

My comment under the block was intentional. I do not wish to make a formal unblock request. My intention was only to comment why I believe the block to be unjustified, I do not contest it. Jack4576 (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Black War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I restored an edit after discussion resulted in an interim consensus being reached on the subject talk page.

Restoring an edit after achieving consensus through discussion is not edit warring.

I am not in breach of the 3RR, and neither did I unilaterally restore my edits to the page. I simply followed policy and restored an edit after seeking consensus through discussion. This block is unjustified. Jack4576 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the material on the article's talk page. You were blocked for edit warring, not 3RR, and your edits fall within the definition of edit warring: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. - Aoidh (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus at the time I restored my edit. Myself and Timothy were of the view that my drafting was the preferred draft, and only one other editor disagreed. 2:1 resulted in a consensus being reached, only after that was the case did I restore my edit. This is not edit warring.

I did not restore my edit after it became clear that consensus had not been reached and discussion was at a deadlock. Jack4576 (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoidh can you please comment my responses above under the ANI edit warring thread. They are the ones made under the previous section; with the timestamps 06:25, 23 April 2024, and 06:31, 23 April 2024.

Timothy has seemingly declined to do so. I am supposed to be able to provide a response to the incident as raised on that board; even whilst blocked from WP-Space. Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but what is an "interim consensus"?  // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Between the time you made your comment, and another editor had made their comment disagreeing with you; there was a 2:1 consensus that had been reached that my drafting ought be the preferred edit.

This consensus arose at a point in time before the discussion had been finalised and closed. Hence it was an interim consensus, as it seemed to me at that point in time that a consensus had likely been reached. After other editors joined and disagreed, it became clear that this wasn't true. Jack4576 (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So "interim consensus" is something you made up in an attempt to restore your disputed edit before other editors joined the discussion? Or is there a guideline or policy I am missing?  // Timothy :: talk  07:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

At the point in time before it became clear other editors intended to join the conversation; the discussion was at a 2:1, so it appeared likely at that point in time that a consensus had already been reached.

Stop making snide comments. Jack4576 (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Miscellania (nightclub)

Hello Jack4576, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Miscellania (nightclub), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miscellania (nightclub).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Clearfrienda}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Clearfrienda ^💬 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

One of Melbourne’s most prominent clubs; perhaps only topped at the moment by Revolver Bar. I think that policy dictates that this subject should remain up; but the fact that some would think Wikipedia’s policies should apply to delete this subject shows the abject problems with Wikipedia’s policies and its failings as a generalist encyclopaedia. Jack4576 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Almost Friday Media

Hello Jack4576, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Almost Friday Media, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almost Friday Media.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dclemens1971}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yet again this website demonstrates that it’s absurd and legalistic adherence to technical guidelines detracts from its stated mission, and detracts from its potential to be -the- generalist encyclopaedia Jack4576 (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edits on Black War

Hello there

As you are aware, there is an open discussion on the lead of this article. The stable version should remain in place until a consensus is reached. Please see policy on bold, revert discuss. WP:BRD I am happy to discuss on the artice talk page.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is a consensus for change as it stands. Jack4576 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page in question, I see two editors on each side of the issue. That's not a consensus. Am I missing something? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not my count. So yes, you appear to be missing something. Jack4576 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the issue, so please revert back to the stable version and continue the discussion on the article Talk Page. Please note the following policy on consensus WP:CON: "If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia. Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus, and I will continue to enforce that consensus. Stop edit warring. Jack4576 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that you have once again reverted to your preferred version of the article and have then opened a RfC which doesn't adress the issue at stake. The issue is not whether the word "genocide" should be used in the lead: the stable version already uses the word genocide. The issues are:

1) You have changed the wording of the lead to give only one side of an ongoing debate. This violates policy on NPOV. WP:POV

2) You have removed sourced content in the article which shows that eminent scholars of the Black Wars have questioned the genocide thesis. You gave no explanation for this. This violates policy on NPOV.

3) You have changed neutrally worded section titles to titles which are misleading and support one side of a contested argument.

4) You have then opened a vaguely worded RfC which will not resolve the core POV issues other editors have raised.

I think the best way to progress with this issue is that you:

1) Revert to the stable version.

2) Withdraw the current RfC

3) Start a new RfC in which you clearly state all the changes to the stable version you wish to make

Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. As Timothy has pointed out your preferred wording contains weasel words. There is a 2:1 consensus on that point that the weasel words should be excluded. If you have issues with the way the RfC is worded, then raise it at the RfC. and stop edit warring Jack4576 (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You won't appreciate a template being dropped on your page, but this [2] is your fourth revert of that lead in 24 hours. It is also not appropriate to change the lead based on your own estimation of some "consensus" when it is under discussion in an RfC and no one has yet !voted there. Please restore immediately to the status quo ante bellum. If you self revert there will be no 3RR breach. If you don't, then I shall raise a report at the edit warring noticeboard. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There is myself, User:NickD, and TimothyBlue that have all said that weasel words in the lede is inappropriate.

Please -stop- overriding the consensus that has been reached. Your actions are disruptive and I will report you if you continue with these reverts. Jack4576 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We are specifically talking about a 3RR breach here. I am trying to give you every chance to avoid a blcok for edit warring. Please self revert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have self-reverted to avoid a technical 3RR breach.

In the meantime, can you please restore the version that excludes the weasel words; as a consensus has been reached that weasel words should be excluded; from editors including myself, NickD, and TimothyBlue. I don't know why you are defending Aemilius Adolphin's wording, when they are a lone editor going against consensus. Jack4576 (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for self reverting. I do not see a consensus for that redraft. I asked about this above. You say I am missing something. Could you show me the diffs I am missing? Nick-D has made no comment in the talk section discussing the lead. TimothyBlue did raise concerns about weasel words and supported your change. Aemilius Adolphin and Lostsandwich both preferred the status quo. That is 2-2 by any measure. However, weasel words should be removed, and discussion in an RfC would be an excellent way to achieve that. There is no hurry. Better to take some time over it and get it right. Further to that, you might like to consider Aemilius Adolphin's suggestion that you withdraw the RfC and workshop your option D to something you can both agree on. This might be quicker than the full RfC, and does indicate that a middle ground is achievable here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

NickD has been issuing public thanks for my edits removing the weasel words. KlayCax has also contributed edits that supported the redraft over the prior version. There is a consensus.

I'm not withdrawing the RfC because the whole point of it was to resolve Aemilius Adolphin's obstinate refusal to follow consensus, or the editorial guidelines regarding weasel words. Once it concludes it won't be possible for them to singularly wage an edit war on this point anymore. You should enforce the redraft in the meantime, because (1) it follows consensus, (2) it follows the sources, (3) the guidelines against weasel words are against it. Jack4576 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well that is neither diffs nor public statements. I can see in the thanks log that Nick-D thanked you once for something [3] but the log does not show what and neither can we assume a why unless and until they choose to engage in the discussion. We can only go with the statements in discussion. But yes, the RfC will resolve the issue. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You should change the words anyway to comply with the guidelines against weasel words, and because to e sources support that wording. ‘Sparked debate’ is a phrasing that presents false balance to the issue. Jack4576 (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I broadly agree that better wording is called for. But this is a NODEADLINES issue. We have an active RfC and it is usual in such cases to keep the status quo ante bellum in place until the version that commands consensus becomes clear. This is just clearer for everyone. Let's allow the process to work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If you agree with it, support it, instead of upholding a status quo that (1) breaches guidelines, (2) does so in a socially harmful way Jack4576 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)