|
Hello, Jonathan f1! a belated Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being " adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 19:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan f1, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Jonathan f1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).
We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts
13:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
|
 Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Economic inequality. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 19:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States. Don't remove talk page posts that have already been replied to. It distorts the history of the thread and leaves any replies without context. Meters (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.
But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.
- Any deleted text should be marked with
<del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.
- Any inserted text should be marked with
<ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted.
- Best practice is to add a new timestamp, e.g.,
; edited ~~~~~, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post.
- To add an explanation of your change, you may add a new comment immediately below your original or elsewhere in discussion as may be most appropriate, insert a comment in square brackets, e.g., "the default width is
100px 120px [the default changed last month]", or use [[WP:CURRENTSECTION#New section|<sup>[corrected]</sup>]] to insert a superscript note, e.g., [corrected], linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.
If you follow the above it's unlikely anyone will complain. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. El_C 09:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not use a talk page for "general discussion". I said that the Bernie Sanders article needs improvement. There is no shortage of reliable sources characterizing Sanders as a polarizing, divisive figure.
- And it's interesting you didn't remove any other aimless chit-chat on that talk page. One even suspects that pro-Sanders sentiment is afforded a certain degree of leniency, while less-than-friendly contributors are subject to a stern enforcement of the rules. I would remind you that bios on here are not supposed to be puff pieces for your favorite political candidates. If a politician is widely known as an ideologue or demagogue, then the article needs to reflect that. See the Donald Trump page for a reference.Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone were to make the same "extremist" comment at the Donald Trump talk page, their comment would be removed, as well. El_C 10:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The DT article discusses his extreme views and even cites professional research that challenges those views. I fully support this approach, and if DT's page were a puff piece I would've been over there as well. But it's actually put together rather nicely. The Sanders page isn't.Jonathan f1 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to discuss improvements to the article, you're free to do so. But prefacing your suggestion with "Sanders is an extremist" is a bit pointy. El_C 10:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Fair point.Jonathan f1 (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jonathan, I saw the sections you added about Catholic representation in Ivy League schools and was intrigued. Do you have any journals or articles about the topic you could kindly link me to? Thank you. 68.6.171.173 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jonathan f1 disruptive editing. Thank you.--‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 18:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Nov 2020 I made changes to the White Americans article and opened up talk sections to discuss them. This apparently wasn't enough and I was blocked within an hour. What I should've done is discuss the issues on the talk page before substantially altering the article. I understand this and will adjust my behaviour in the future.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)|idletimestamp=20210511210343}}[reply]
- This unblock request has been up a while, and you haven't edited in almost a month. Are you still here? It appears this block was done this way so you could practice gaining consensus on a talk page before making contentious/tendentious article edits. Have you gained any consensus for anything at any talk pages? I see posts to a few a talk pages since this partial block (many posts to one in particular), but I'm not sure I see any collaborative consensus building.
- If your unblock request is based on the belief that this was not an acceptable block, please say so. If your unblock request is based on demonstrating successful use of a talk page to gain consensus, please point to it.
- @JzG: Guy, did you have anything in particular in mind as an endgame? I'm not sure an article-space only block is sustainable indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'm still here. I've been waiting for over a month for a response, but understand that most administrators are volunteers who can only do so much in their spare time.
- I absolutely stand by every single edit I made on that page, although I realise that I should've sought consensus before making any serious changes. My original request was lengthier and more of an apologia rather than a straightforward confession of guilt. After rereading the unblock request tutorial it was my understanding that a talk page isn't the appropriate venue to litigate the unfairness of a block.
- Let's appreciate the irony here. I was accused of "tendentious editing" for challenging content that was sourced to a controversial area of research known as "White Studies", which literally has a political manifesto as its founding charter. The editors on that page were relying too heavily on this type of research to source their content. They were also relying on outdated demographic research from the 1980s and early 90s which ignores massive demographic changes and research developments that have taken place in the US over the last couple decades.
- I would also like for there to be some type of moratorium on the use of "Albion's Seed" as an RS for social historical articles on this site. This book is cited all the time on here, and the "White Americans" article (where my incident occurred) has a whole section dedicated to it. The book is decades old, is hardly ever referenced in modern historical research (and when it is it's usually used as a cautionary tale of histories that are too generalised and un-nuanced), and received mostly negative reviews from scholars when it was published. How knowledgeable are these editors in US social history that they think Albion's Seed meets Wiki's RS criteria?
- If I'm unblocked I won't be making any changes to that particular page. I may open up talk page sections to articulate my suggestions, but I will leave it up to other editors to judge how useful they are. In closing, and for the record, I did try opening up talk sections to discuss my objections after I was blocked, but the editor who reported me buried them without any feedback. Apparently he did what he had to do to guard the controversial content in the article and didn't want to engage with the sources that contradicted it. In other words, even if I sought consensus on that page before editing, it wouldn't have gotten me anywhere.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked a question that I would like an answer to before I consider an unblock. Have you gained any consensus for anything at any talk pages since the block from article space? I don't think the concern is with any one page (though I've pinged JzG above to confirm my understanding), so it's not a matter of avoiding editing one article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC) p.s. I'm hanging up my keyboard for the evening, so no response from me will be coming for 12 hours or so. I haven't forgotten. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No I haven't. When I was blocked it wasn't explained to me why I was being blocked, or what I had to do to unblock myself. I was simply stamped like mail at the post office. Over time I came to realise that I made significant changes to an article without seeking a consensus on the talk page before making the edits. Since that time I've contributed to talk page discussions, in particular the article on the Irish slaves myth. But one of the editors of that article notified the entire page that I've been blocked, which I felt was highly inappropriate and unprofessional. I figured that if my talk page suggestions are going to be taken seriously, I should first try to get unblocked. If you'd like I could try to sort my issues out with that editor on that particular article via consensus, and then report back here.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You participated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050 § Jonathan f1 disruptive editing. in which I think Struthious Bandersnatch explained it rather well. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The ANI thread Guy links to seems very clear about the reason for the article-but-not-talk-page block, and what you can do to remove it. Guy seems confident in that thread that after you've worked on collaborative consensus building on article talk pages some, you'll get the hang of it. So yeah, I'd recommend giving it a shot. Your goal is not to convince someone you're right about something; your goal is to demonstrate polite collaboration to find a consensus on something. I'll procedurally decline this unblock request to give you some time to try it; feel free to create a new unblock request when you've done that. If, during this process, someone uses your blocked status to ignore you, ping me and I'll comment at whatever talk page it's occurring on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Floquenbeam:On the Irish slaves myth article, I started a talk page section explaining why it was inappropriate to use my block to silence my suggestions. I also offered a rough draft on how a subsection of the article should be rewritten. I had previously explained to this editor that the source he/she is using is not reliable because one, the author is a labour historian who has no history of publishing on the topics we are covering; and two, his essays were published in political magazines and weren't reviewed by other scholars. This editor didn't seem to understand the basic process of academic publishing and reviewing, and why it's important that we assess the reliability of sources based on whether or not the work in question was scrutinised by subject matter experts, especially when an academic is publishing in a subspecialty completely outside his/her expertise. This got me nowhere. I then tried explaining why certain content in the source is inaccurate, misleading, or factually incorrect (which I shouldn't have to do if editors would just stick to RS criteria as outlined by Wiki), errors that suggest the author is an amateur.
- Long story short, another editor jumped in and essentially accused me of trolling (that I wrote too much on a talk page), attacked my credentials, and made reference to the 'Streisand effect', which I took as a veiled threat (the implication was that I shouldn't have brought up the block - since the discussion was archived - even though I was engaging with an editor who had previously used my block to shut me out of the page).
- I have taken this issue to the RS noticeboard, but I've got to say this is rather discouraging. I wanted to get involved in Wikipedia because I found a lot of these history articles in desperate need of improvement, but I cannot work with this level of incompetence. Some of these editors don't even know what an academic press is.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh? Which ones? And who are accusing of incompetence this time? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bastun: see ISM talk page. I left a response.Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[1]]. Thank you. ComradeKublai (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly entitled to add in Foster's acknowledged role as the doyen of the Revisionist paradigm, as long as your contribution is referenced Billsmith60 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "Revisionist" was a pejorative used by scholars who, with few exceptions, weren't actual historians at the time. And average readers probably wouldn't understand what this term means: while most people use the word in a negative way (almost as a synonym for "pseudohistory"), revisionism is simply the work that professional historians do for a living. Histories are always being rewritten, revised or added to as new evidence comes in or new interpretations of old evidence are published (without that, historians wouldn't have a job if everything that could be said about the past has already been said). When Foster wrote "We're all Revisionists Now", it was his way of communicating to critics, mostly literary critics, that his views on Irish history were also the views of most of his colleagues (and were thus not controversial, at least not in the Academy).
- That means you'll have to go on the Louis Cullen bio and describe him as a "revisionist economic historian" (otherwise, why pick on Foster?). And, in the interest of fairness, perhaps you might want to head over to the Seamus Deane page and describe him as a "Green Marxist historian". Right now he's described as an "intellectual historian", which sounds super smart.
- Or you could just leave it alone. Foster's views were mainstream at the time and do not warrant any particular label. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reply. Yes, you are correct: why pick on Foster? After all, he was only the golden boy of that constituency until Hart landed, and Moody, Lyons, MacDonagh et al. had been advancing a Revisionist agenda since soon after the formation of the Irish Free State. Foster without Revisionism is like Collins without de Valera. Over and out. Billsmith60 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I've encountered this accusation that Revisionists had an "agenda", although it is usually claimed that they were trying to rewrite history during the Troubles and that scholars were afraid to dispute them for fear of being labeled a terrorist.
- The problem with this argument is that the earliest revisionist histories were published before anyone had fired a shot in Northern Ireland (like Louis Cullen's earliest work in economic history). And revisionist histories were not merely rhetorical arguments, but were based on actual data and evidence that called into question some of the fundamental aspects and assumptions of nationalist historians. So it can not simply be snapped away by claiming 'agenda' -the arguments they made require explanations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. nableezy - 19:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "collaborative talk page discussion" (per advice given to you when blocked). Nor is this comment for that matter. Contentious topics are not the best place to practice "collaborative talk page discussion", it is all too easy to go astray. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this is not a "contentious topic" for me personally. I have zero edits on any articles/talk pages pertaining to either Israel or Palestine prior to this month, and my initial reaction when this news broke was, "Another war in the Middle East? Must be a slow news day." Little did I know all the hysteria that would ensue in the coming weeks. As someone who's emotionally detached from both sides of this conflict, I think this is a perfect opportunity for me to practice "collaborative talk page discussions." Nableezy, on the other hand, has received multiple warnings this past month for combative behavior on talk pages, was nearly blocked from editing an article about the hospital controversy, and is still throwing his weight around in this space. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that your blatant POV-pushing on talk pages and misuse of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard will bring you any closer to lifting your article ban? In my opinion, that article ban is a way to protect YOU. Without that, you would be more then likely been hit with a indefinite block for Wikipedia.
Please take this as a warning. The Banner talk 10:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what "pov" am I supposed to be "pushing"? A section of the article is missing historical context and in places misrepresents the source it cites. This is not based on a figment of my imagination, but scholarship relevant to the subject that I've been quoting and linking.
- The DRN file was closed on the reasoning that "no real exchanges" have taken place. And the reason for this is because editors like you would rather focus on some offhand remark I made 3 months ago than read the sources and comment on the disputed content. I'm opening a new section (as recommended by the DRN moderator) and would appreciate it if you stick to the substance of my argument and what the sources say. I'm not your enemy. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a serious preoccupation with "ethnicity". In my opinion, not realistically. But try again. Feel free. The Banner talk 23:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I rarely get involved in articles having to do with "ethnicity" and there are 100 other subjects I'd rather think about. But I have noticed there's a confusion around the meaning of the term and many issues in ethnic-related articles. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you log in on the italian wikipedia so we talk there about a Marco Polo issue concerning the italian wiki? please provide me a link below to your account talk page there because I can't find it, perhaps you have deleted your page there?.2A01:E11:17:40B0:702A:6B06:3465:66BD (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't use Italian wiki and wouldn't be able to anyway -I don't speak Italian. Discuss here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok nevermind, it was about an issue I have there in Italian, sorry. 2A01:E11:17:40B0:702A:6B06:3465:66BD (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than using the talk page of an article as place to make forumy posts and given that you are not able to edit articles yourself, it would be better to make specific edit requests instead. Just a suggestion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But I'm sure you're aware that NOTAFORUM is selectively applied on here. I linked to a BBC report pertaining to the topic, summarized the content and maybe one or two lines was a pov on the summarized content. It's completely permissible to have minimal topic-related discussion that's not specific to an edit, but oftentimes an editor will see minor forum-speak they don't like, and then leap into the role of talk page enforcer, when they themselves are chit chatting on other talk pages (just a general observation, nothing personal about you). But your point about making specific requests while I'm temporarily blocked from editing article spaces was good advice. Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think SPECIFICO/Soibangla are Groundwork Collaborative activists? Fephisto (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea, but these individuals are highly active in political economy spaces and their edits are predictably slanted. One issue I've had with soibangla is that he will often edit a particular pov into an article by citing a combination of RSes and non-RSes like think tanks (which we find on the inflation article). It got to be a headache for me trying to get those guys to stop citing think tanks to bolster perspectives that are otherwise minor. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
