Hello, Jgriffy98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Overexposed (album). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Era styles (BC/AD and BCE/CE) are subject to Wikipedia guidelines detailed at WP:ERA. You would need reasons specific to the article's content and consensus on the article's talk page to change the established style. Mojoworker (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat ironic that you say I can't change "the established style", because it just so happens that BC and AD are the originally established styles. I take issue with the fact that people use BCE and CE as an alternative, politically correct form of labeling years. AD and BC were created first, and they have been widely used in calendars since the dawn of the first century. I do not agree with changing an entire pre-existing system for the sake of political correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.10.234 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly the one with a flawed understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. I will decide what has bearing on this conversation. I don't appreciate the tone of your last response. It's as if you are speaking down from a position of authority, of which you have none. Do not threaten to block me again. The terms CE and BCE are ridiculous forms of political correctness (of which you seem quite eager to defend) that should not be used. My statement about how your post was ironic does have bearing here, because I was making the point that BC and AD are the originally established styles. Wikipedia does not mandate one style over another. I have read through their policies on this matter, and it is stated that BC and AD are the "traditional ways of designating eras". Therefore, your statement that BCE and CE are the established styles is factually incorrect. If you disagree with that, then please state your counterargument. Seek to block me from editing and I shall do the same to you. Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My edits were not intended to "make a point". I made the edits because BC and AD are the correct forms of designation, while CE and BCE or not. Please do not straw man my intentions. I made the edits because I simply saw a correction that had to be made.
But you have been informed several times that your change of era style without consensus is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Yet you persist in making the change, despite being reverted by four different editors. You are being disruptive. Mojoworker (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't we have that discussion? You keep going on about "consensus", so please direct me to the talk page where that discussion can be had. Choosing only to revert edits and send notifications does not resolve the matter. Where can we discuss and debate this topic, so as to reach a consensus with the other editors? Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reasons for changing the era style that are specific to the content of the Jewish–Roman wars article, then you would need to propose the change and try to gain consensus for it at Talk:Jewish–Roman wars. If you want to change the overall Wikipedia guideline that states: Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change, then you would need to propose the change and try to gain consensus for it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Mojoworker (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for engaging in discussion. In the future, if someone reverts a change you make to an article and you disagree, discussion is the next step – see: WP:BRD. Don't edit war or you'll likely get in trouble. Let me know if you have any other questions (or take Longhair up on their offer above to help). Mojoworker (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the policy guidelines on "consensus" are vague and contradictory. I do not accept that as a valid reason to revert edits. There will always be disagreement between editors, and I certainly disagree with you on this matter. How are you determining article consensus in this case? Where can we meet to debate the matter at hand? Jgriffy98 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia’s policies around [alternative medicine] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.
What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[1][2][3][4]"
Please stop wasting my time. That whole speech that you copied and pasted does not address a single concern that I raised. Based on all of the evidence I see on the Exodus Wikipedia article, everything you just said is complete nonsense. You are NOT biased in favor of science and reasoning. As I have just pointed out, you are not being honest, and have no idea what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you for the condescending reply though. Also, do you work for Wikipedia? Are you employed at the company? You keep saying "we". Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop replying to me on two separate pages. I wish to have a discussion, but let's do it on the other page. This will become too difficult to manage. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
June 2019
Your recent editing history at The Exodus 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --regentspark (comment) 01:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use my talk page to discuss article issues
@Doug Weller: My apologies. I didn't mean to write as much as I did on your page, but other people kept replying to my posts, and we ended up getting into a pretty heated exchange. The whole thing went on for quite some time. Anyway, would you like to respond to any of the points I made on your talk page? I raised several concerns and would love to get your thoughts on them. You can address them here, or we could converse on a different talk page. Your choice. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Please stop trying to harass me. Do not message me or contact me in any way. Stop intervening in conversations I have with other editors, because all you're trying to do is provoke a reaction from me. You never contribute anything meaningful to my conversations with other editors, and you always message me with an extremely condescending and passive aggressive tone. I do not appreciate you as an editor, and I feel like you're actively trying to get my account banned. Do not interact with me on Wikipedia, or we will continue to have issues with each other. I am trying to avoid another confrontation with you. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! In this comment you told other users to "go away and let the grownups handle this conversation". This does not meet the standards of civility we expect from contributors to this project. Please consider removing or striking out these (and any other) personal attacks to show your commitment to doing better in this area. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: Hello, Bovlb. Pleasure to make your acquaintance. I have been harrassed several times by editor Tgeorgescu, and I would like for him/her to leave me alone. I have warned him several times not to communicate with me, as the two of us have a bad standing with each other. We have both used personal attacks against each other in the past, so I have been trying to avoid any interaction with him. Tgeorgescu seems to just randomly appear during a conversation I'm having with another editor, even though I have warned him not to message me. When he does interfere with a conversation I'm having with another editor, he never contributes anything to the conversation, and instead makes passive aggressive and smartass remarks. I feel like he's doing this just to get under my skin. Again, I do not want to interact with Tgeorgescu, yet he continually shows up out of nowhere to criticize me. I was considering reporting him before, but decided it wasn't worth my time. Seeing as how he just reported me for "attacking" him, I have changed my mind. How can I get Tgeorgescu to leave me alone? Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: He has continuously monitored my behavior everytime I make an edit or engage with a discussion with another editor, and reports me for violation every chance he can get. I feel like he's deliberately trying to get under my skin in order to provoke a reaction, and he's actively trying to get my account banned. Jgriffy98 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your question on my page
Wikipedia doesn't really have a venue for private conversations. In any case, discussions about articles should generally take place on those articles' talk pages. If it's specifically Tgeorgescu you're worried about, I'll address him directly. Seriously, Tgeorgescu, don't get involved with Jgriffy98. You'll only inflame the situation. A. Parrot (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Exodus Talk Page
Not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish on the The Exodus Talk page, but whatever it was died a fiery death about 20 posts ago. Trying to help you. Just back away. Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
@A. Parrot: Not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish by messaging me, but whatever it is, that conversation on The Exodus page ended a while ago. You seem like a loudmouth bitch, and I really don't want your help. Just go fuck yourself. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A. Parrot: "Not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish". At least you admit you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Maybe you should get a feel for the situation first before coming at me like smartass. Stop trying to start shit, you know-it-all punk. Jgriffy98 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2019 (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).
"Not sure exactly what you are trying to accomplish on the The Exodus Talk page, but whatever it was died a fiery death about 20 posts ago. Trying to help you. Just back away. Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke" This comment was completely unnecessary. The conversation this editor was referring to had already ended, and I had moved on from that situation. This editor was simply trying to provoke a reaction from me. There was no reason for him to contact me, especially with such a condescending, passive-aggressive attitude.
Decline reason:
This unblock request is entirely about another editor. Please read WP:GAB. Instead of talking about other editors, your unblock request should talk about your own actions. As you have not done so, there are no grounds to consider an unblock so I procedurally decline your request. Yamla (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2019 (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.
November 2019
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Book of Exodus. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Please delete your comments where you attack the other editor on the talk page.– Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wallyfromdilbert: The editor I "attacked" needs to keep his mouth shut. I really don't give a shit what he posts. What pisses me off is that you have decided that my "attacks" are the real problem here. In reality, you're the problem for allowing shit like this to continue. Maybe try saying something to the other editor? No, I'm guessing you're probably not going to do that. Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
