User talk:Jroehl

Welcome!

Hello, Jroehl, and

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Thanks for uploading File:List of countries by past military expenditure2.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:List of countries by past military expenditure.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jroehl: Not sure if I'm the correct recipient for your message, yet I'll help if I can.  Attempting to respect the ~anon and archival nature of Wikipedia by continuing conversation here. If you really prefer PM then we can continue that way.

From looking at your work it appears to be heavily involved with the concept of time, events, dates, and the proliferation that easy publishing has had on the creation of big data in places like Wikipedia.  The work seems interesting, I just have no reference to what you're talking about, or what your specific proposal was.  Perhaps you have me switched with a different user?

As a side note, did you know your work is being referenced by Darpa, Facebook, and the University of Melbourne?^[1] Araesmojo (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what this is referring to?

Is this about the post I placed on the proposals section yesterday?

I am not sure about the nature of the "~anon" reference. I am not interested in hiding anything.

Thanks Jeff Roehl Jroehl (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love that bubble diagram of the worlds languages. It is the highest use of Tableau.

Jroehl (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the website I was refering to is:

Timelinesinhistory.com

Jroehl (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to

This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parler#User_GorillaWarfare_Twitter_Troll is a PA and a violation of out policies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the invective's and

This is now a warning, not a request. If you do not stop soapboxing and making PA's against other editors I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a final warning, stop casting aspersions or accusing fellow editors of political bias, do so again and I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2020 (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

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.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parler has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Notifying all editors who participated in the informal discussion about removing the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, specifically, are you accusing me of? Jroehl (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last word about this series of incidents, I suggest you drop this. Read our polices on [[wp:npa] and

wp:soapboxing]Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Jroehl, hello, I am warning you of not using good faith about other editors on a talk page. Heart ^(talk) 16:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>YouSaid>> This is my last word about this series of incidents

Thank you! Have a nice weekend!

>>YouSaid>> I suggest you drop this.

And I wonder what the other 7 billion people on the planet earth might suggest.

I suggest that calling several million people anti Jewish soapboxing. Isn't hate speech, by definition, "soapboxing"?

Jroehl (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Gab (social network), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to make this exact comment but I was distracted and now here we are.--Jorm (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: You may wish to see the final warning Jroehl already received for making these exact same types of allegations against me back in November (see this nonsense at Talk:Parler). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I considered just blocking, perhaps I'm being too lenient. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Not my decision to make, but them continuing to cast aspersions against me that I've already explained to them can be easily proven false is growing pretty tired. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anything like this recurs, the next will be permanent. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Acroterion, I hate coming after you like this, but this edit, and this, that's more than enough for an indefinite block, IMO. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, given those diffs indef is the right call. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not attack anybody. Loyal Wikipedian trying to defend Wikipedia from NPOV violations. Jroehl (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Insinuating that someone is working for Twitter without any evidence isn't "attacking" them? Really? — Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2021 (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.

After contributing to Wikipedia for many years. You are blocking me permanently?

Who do I appeal to?

Jroehl (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I should not have accused anybody of working for anybody else without evidence. I apologize. Can you just block me for a few weeks instead of indefinitly? I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 10 years now. Jroehl (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm uncomfortable unblocking you, as you seem to be buying in to conspiracy theories and attacking other editors without even the slightest justification, to further those conspiracy theories. While I think it's entirely plausible you may be unblocked in the future, I'm not comfortable considering lifting the block at this moment. I'd want to see a robust rejection of those conspiracy theories. Note that other admins may feel differently and note for the record, I am not an American; I live in Canada (just so you understand that I'm not, say, a Democrat). Yamla (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2021 (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.

Are you requesting that I denounce my sincerely held beliefs? Beliefs shared by many millions?

Can I quote you on that?

Is there a neutral administrator at Wikipedia I can talk to?

Jroehl (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make a new unblock request and another administrator will review it. You are free to believe what you want. You are not free to use Wikipedia to push your conspiracy theories. You are especially not free to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is on point here. This is the last I'll say here. Again, you are free to make a new unblock request and I'd be prohibited from reviewing it. --Yamla (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Jroehl (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything is documented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Accusations of editor and Wikipedia political bias. The good news (for you) is that now the Wikipedia has (because of your behavior) blocked you from editing, there is another place where your fringe conspiracy theories will be welcome. Perhaps you have heard of it. They call it "Parler". Be careful though; Parler will kick you off if you attack other users the way you have here. Or has Parler already banned you? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) I did not attack anybody. 2) I guess if you are a conservative (and half the country still is), it is ok to be banned from Wikipedia.

I did not know this.

Jroehl (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked indefinitely for personal attacks, as has been repeatedly explained to you. If you aren't willing to acknowledge this conduct, there is nothing more to be said here. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how speculating that somebody may have an ulterior motive for repeatedly violating NPOV is a personal attack. And I did apologize for that, though.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for years. And a lot more than your databases will reveal.

I had an administrator demand a "robust rejection of those conspiracy theories". I don't even know what he is talking about. Would you like some sort of religious conversion also?

Is there some rational, mature adults that I can communicate with?

Jroehl (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed talkpage access, since you're just repeating the personal attacks that resulted in the block. I see no likelihood that anything will change. Acroterion (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for commenting after TPA has been revoked, as I normally avoid doing so, but I am doing so here simply because it may be useful in some future appeal. Jroehl, several people have already mentioned the Wikipedia principle which describes "how speculating that somebody may have an ulterior motive for repeatedly violating NPOV is a personal attack". If you have not read it, I'd recommend you do so: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Specifically note: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]