User talk:Kbog

Barnstar!

 * Aww, thanks bro. Kbog (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Samuel H. Cook


A tag has been placed on Samuel H. Cook requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kbog
I just noticed that you are trying to tidy-up Timeline of nonprofit evaluation. You probably know what I think-(needs to go), but I am sad to see you editing to help these articles when their status is in jeopardy. I don't think that one can be helped. But-maybe if you wait and it becomes an AFD if you still want to try and save it, the very first thing that needs to be done there is a title change or merge. Because what the title says is not the content. That's why I gave up and didn't even try to fix it, because it looks like it needs to just be gone.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think one of the main purposes of the deletion process is to provide a motivation to make articles better and it is the best time to do editing. I don't see what the problem with the title is. How about merging the content with charity evaluator into an article about charity evaluation?  K . Bog  01:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I see your point about trying to save content. That is interesting that Charity Evaluation is a RL! I have to rest my eyes for awhile here but maybe backtrack to see if Charity Evaluation would duplicate something else or not? If not, it probably should be an article I agree there. Or--getting back to my point about title. Charity Evaluation Organisations would be better I think since the title bugged me because I think that you could find the ambiguous "charity evaluation/nonprofit evaluation" going back to the stone age or ??? at least to Biblical times forward. That's another problem that I have with using Singer and Singer's philosophy so extensively,(and spammingly imo)if we are using Springer's jargon and adopted terms for things that mean one thing to ordinary readers, and the EA advocates are using EA terms and jargon as defined by Singer, why shouldn't MOST of that stuff be on Springer's page? I guess you will tell me that EA is bigger than that, but it certainly doesn't require so many different articles using these alternate jingoistic definitions of terms that just make things upsetting and confusing for people. EA really is not that well-known and widespread that many people such as myself would just accept certain well established words and terms being reused in the service of Singer's philosophy and EA. Maybe the terms, if used should be italicized or something? I'm not really sure-just throwing that out there. Like even Effective Altruisim should both word be capitalised? I don't know I could be wrong about that but basically I don't like seeing this philosophy that someone invented out of perfectly good words being used in unfamiliar ways with the assumption that we and our readers just automatically accept this philosophy as completely legitimate. And we most certainly cannot promote it in the voice of Wikipedia-so those are some of my serious concerns with the topics. I really think that the entire cataloge of EA topics as far as Wikipedia is concerned needs to be whittled-down to the fewest possible number of articles.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if we could find good information on charity evaluation going back to early human history then it would be worth including. And maybe have some content on all kinds of charity evaluation, not just that which is done by organizations. A lot of this isn't unique to Singer's philosophy, and I don't think the terms are at odds with common definitions. However I will keep an eye out for this kind of problem. Also I'm pretty sure that effective altruism isn't capitalized in standard use, nor is it usually capitalized in Wikipedia articles... but that's also another issue to perhaps be discussed and finalized some other time. I don't have time to figure out all of this at once. The claims and ideas in effective altruism are perfectly unique, I don't think it has been criticized for being trivial or based on wordplay. If you could point out specific examples where this is a problem then I could take a closer look. Hopefully we can find enough content on charity evaluation that the article won't entirely consist of effective altruist ideas.  K . Bog  15:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the TL itself is still basically nonsensical and confusing in my opinion. Darwinism and empirical or scientific means of measuring charities just doesn't seem like the kick-off point in non-profit evaluations. Maybe if the TL were named "predecessor of the philosophy known as Effective Altruism" since the starting point could be right for that? But even then, you already know how I feel about the TL. And it in my mind is kind of like creating a timeline to feature Wolf Cola, if Wolf Cola were a real brand with the "timeline of beverages"--just to make Wolf Cola look more important. And I'm not really thrilled with the way that EA has been presented on the project, but I understand that it probably is a notable topic in itself---it (EA) just needs to be untangled a bit from some of the articles. I know that you are working to improve the topic, so I hope this helps a little? I think if you are trying to squeeze current non-profit evaluators into a group or topic of some sort, it could just end up looking like an advertisement for any and all .orgs mentioned, since "judging non-profits in a scientific way" is pretty well covered already in the EA and Singer topics--but there may be another angle that I'm not seeing.TeeVeeed (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is lots of history of nonprofit evaluation which is prior to effective altruism, notable, and philosophically separated from it. Some of it, especially very old stories, may not be included in the article, but that's fine - we'll just have to find reliable sources and add it in. Overall, I'm not really sure what you're proposing.  K . Bog  09:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Noted, and not what I'm doing. Cheers.  K . Bog  00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles not proxies for the websites of organizations covered by articles. This article and other EA articles have been hijacked, and turned into proxies.  Please actually read WP:SOAPBOX which discusses this. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Read it, noted, and see nothing which indicates that I've been soapboxing. The articles seem fine to me. Why don't you explain what the issues and try to solve them properly before starting edit wars?  K . Bog  00:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's true. The policy wouldn't talk about you specifically. It does discuss how organizations and their fans tend to want to turn WP articles into proxies for the organization's website. Jytdog (talk) 00:49,r 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Curious how you are resorting to insults instead of discussing the important issues. Why don't you explain what the issues with the article are and try to solve them properly before starting edit wars?  K . Bog  00:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again that this is not obvious to you, shows how POV you are. The article is bloated with SPS. In-bubble bloggy garbage. I deal with this kind of thing across WP. The creationists do it, the scientologists do it, the acupuncturists try to do it, the video game fans do it, etc. All of that is in-bubble  fancruft.  WP is a scholarly project built with high quality sources.   Jytdog (talk)
 * I'm not used to self published sources being hated this much at all. This is a new witch hunt which I haven't encountered in all my edits on various topics over many years on this site. Funny that I'm being accused of POV pushing because of this. I spend most of my time on articles, not meta space, so forgive me for not being in tune with the latest trends.  K . Bog  01:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You also should have seen the article before I started working on it. If you had then you would consider me an ally, not an opponent. The history of edits I made to the article prior to your arrival proves that I'm not POV pushing.  K . Bog  01:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You would be unhappy if you went to an article about say Scientology (or an article about any other group) and found it almost completely sourced to their website, right? C'mon.  You would say to yourself, "Geez this article was completely hijacked."  That isn't what we want to offer people, nor how we want people to react when they read a WP article.  When that happens, we lose the public trust.
 * The mission of WP is to provide the public with crowdsourced encyclopedia articles that reflect accepted knowledge. There is a boatload of things that we are not, per WP:NOT.  "NOT" exists because so many people mistake WP for something else.   The only way this place works, is if we all reach for high quality, independent, secondary sources, and summarize them neutrally.  That is the method that allows us to even get close to NPOV articles.
 * I talk about this on my user page at User:Jytdog.   I am going back to work on the article now. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the sources are being used for information about the source itself, then that's fine. Citing the scientologist church's website as a source for what the scientologist church believes and does is an appropriate use of primary sources, in my opinion. Ideally, of course you should include both primary and secondary sources. But your position in practice seems to be that any material with a primary source is worse than no material at all. I disagree strongly with that.  K . Bog  01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no way, that an article sourced almost entirely from an organization's website can be NPOV. There is no way.   The less that kind of stuff is used, the better.  Jytdog (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Half the citations were from the organization's website, I agree that is too much, but not severe.  K . Bog  05:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Giving What We Can shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. Follow BRD. Seriously.  K . Bog  00:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what you are doing. You are heading directly for a topic ban as a WP:SPA account that advocates for one thing, and you are editing warrring to keep sourcing that violates core policies. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm reverting your changes that you're making without discussing on talk first. Lots of material can be sourced either appropriately from primary sources or from 3rd party sources. If you think this is an SPA then you haven't look far back enough into my history. I'm not going to be banned, because this is in accordance with WP:BRD and you are engaging in edit warring. Why don't you hold on, see what material can be sourced properly, and then see what you can delete?  K . Bog  00:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You will be topic banned for long term POV pushing, and your efforts to fight the cleanup of this article will be exhibit 1. It is a spamfest nightmare abuse of WP.  It is indefensible content wise.  Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposal. Let me finish cleaning it up, and then we can have an RfC and have the community choose between the fetid piece of shit that existed before I started working and the cleaned up version.  When I am done I will revert back to the shitfest and then open an RfC.  How is that? Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think your threats are very scary. If you want to drastically change an article without discussing on talk first then it's entirely normal to revert edits. Go ahead and look through my actual edit history to see if I'm "POV pushing" - most of my edits have been improvements. I trust the Wikipedia community to be more perceptive than you are. K . Bog  00:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooh, insults. No, I don't like that proposal. The community can choose between whatever 'improvements' you're making, and the improvements which I'm making, which I will make regardless of whether they are preceded by your edits and deletions.  K . Bog  00:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * LOok, I put the tag on the article that it is under construction. Your jumping in after I did that, is just tacky. Let me clean it up, then I will self-revert. Then you can do you do your thing.  After you are ready, we will have the RfC.  OK? Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not see the tag, since I went straight to edit history. I don't think this is the right way to edit Wikipedia articles, it's not a contest of who can make the better version. The right approach is to identify specific issues and then fix them. If there is no way to fix or properly source a particular piece of material, then you can delete it. The way you're trying to do this is garbage.  K . Bog  01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also it seems that you are quite a bit more ideologically motivated than any editor I've come across recently: Soapboxing is still soapboxing, whether it's positive or negative.  K . Bog  01:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed the tag to template:in use to make it more clear.  The only ideology i have is Wikipedian.  I work to keep articles NPOV and have to deal with all kinds of fans.   The EA people are some of the worst i that i encounter.   Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is how you treat every EA article then that's not a surprise.  K . Bog  01:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost every EA article has been hijacked by EA advocates. This happens to sets of articles in WP where there is an online community of advocates.  They  come here and take over articles.  It is one of the vulnerabilities of WP. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And now apparently it's going to be taken over by folks from the COI noticeboard who got angry because of advocates. Round and round we go.  K . Bog  01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm less experienced than either of you on WP, but arrived at this discussion because I was concerned that Jytdog was ideologically editing against effective altruism content across multiple articles. I think Jytdog has good intentions, but worry he's being more deletionist than he would be in other areas that didn't have the same history, mess, advocacy, and other annoying features that WP's effective altruism-related content has. (Also, I'm sorry if this comment is inappropriate. I didn't know a better place to put it.) Utsill (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's exactly what I thought. And there's no good way to stop it since as long as he has friends on ANI and the edits are technically allowable under some wikipolicy then no one will take action. The only thing to do is to go through these articles and spam them with 3rd party refs. Unfortunately, whoever wrote them in the first place wasn't aware of how people treat primary sourced material (and I wasn't either, until very recently).  K . Bog  01:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * as promised, after I got the article to a decent state here, i reverted all my changes and restored the shitpile. It is all yours.  Let me know when you are ready for the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Third time you've used that word to describe an article that I worked on. I don't know what to say except just drop it.  K . Bog  04:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you see what happened to the GiveWell article? I turned a shitpile into a WP article there, as i did here.  You really need to stop citing in-bubble EA-universe blogs and the like.  If you want to be effective in WP and not waste your own time creating shit that other people will have to spend yet more time cleaning up, use high quality secondary sources.  Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've even seen what I've been doing. How many instances can you find where I added a new self-published source or blog to an EA-related article?  K . Bog  04:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You reverted my first set of changes to the GWWC article. In doing so, you owned the sources you restored.  You just did that.  And you just said that you have worked hard on both of the articles I have now worked over, so apparently you were just fine with the horrible sourcing there..
 * I am not going to go working through your edit history yet, but I am getting close to doing that to prepare a case.  But not yet.  In any case,  I am done here.  Please make your changes to the GWWC article and let me know when you are done. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you include that sort of thing, sure. I was not finished with the article and would have preferred to improve on existing material than start over. But when I'm not busy putting out fires like this, my real contributions are all supported by reliable published sources. Try not to let your big tarry brush touch anything on your way out.  K . Bog  04:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick note
I have been pretty harsh here. I recognize that.

What I care about is the integrity of WP.

People argue whether corporate-driven advocacy editors (typically commercial spammers writing about some company or video game or whatever) or advocates (fans of vegetarianism, or gun control, or whatever) harm Wikipedia more.

They both harm WP a lot.

Generally I keep a pretty cool head when dealing with this stuff in WP.

But I find the hijacking of WP pages by EA advocates to be particularly hard to stomach. EA is supposedly all about making the world a better place... about giving.

But EA advocates have hijacked a bunch of WP pages (I won't call them articles) and used them to promote their cause - it is as blatant and ugly as some drug rep coming here to write about how great their drug is or some politician deleting scandal about themselves.

It is exactly the same kind of abuse of WP.

But I have been too harsh when discussing the bad content, and I am sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I accept that. But I think you don't realize that people who aren't experienced with particular areas of Wikipedia, even if they've been on the site for a long time, don't have the same familiarity or understanding of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:UNDUE that you do. I don't think it's abuse.  K . Bog  05:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unintentional abuse is still abuse. But I should be kinder. And i appreciate you hearing me. :)  Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

?
How do you know this?

If you have some connection with this group, please disclose it per the WP:COI guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just looked on his Wiki page  K . Bog  19:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that his story wasn't interesting enough to be covered because he was a PhD student at William MacAskill .... I guess you can figure out that he was a PhD student at the time of the founding from that page, but that's all. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Kbog can you please disclose any association with EA? Thinking a TBAN could be a good idea maybe?TeeVeeed (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Teeveed, I think Kbog is getting it and is going to be part of the solution here. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I just thought it odd that the question was not answered. But I guess it is up to Kbog.TeeVeeed (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MacAskill is already known for being pretty young, so when Jytdog was puzzled over his absence in the GWWC stories my first thought was to check if he had even graduated at the time, and then I inferred that that was probably the reason he wasn't mentioned. The only way I could have really known about the history of GWWC's media coverage would be actually being with them at the time, which I couldn't have been given that I'm not British. I have no COI with the organization.  K . Bog  23:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * :) Thanks. Please avoid making definitive claims like that in the future when you are guessing, especially about living people. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Slate Star Codex
As you have edited the Slate Star Codex article, I thought you might be interested to know that it has been nominated for deletion. I was notified by the nominator, but it doesn't look like you were, so I am rectifying that situation by leaving this comment. Please note that deletion discussions are not votes, and closing administrators might pay greater attention to comments referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines than to those that don't, or those that simply restate points already made. It's also worth noting that deletion discussions are said to typically remain open for at least 7 days, except in cases where credible grounds for speedy deletion are identified.--greenrd (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I saw the original deletion flag, but felt unsure for a while. Just added a statement.  K . Bog  20:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Boldness
Being bold is fine, when there is no opposition, or when you can reasonably expect your edits will not be controversial.

But we are in the middle of a merge discussion in which your merge proposal is being opposed, and in which there is no consensus as of yet. In the midst of that, you unilaterally merge most of the article.

That's not appropriate behavior.

I've reverted the merge. We need to resume the discussion to collaborate on a solution. (Propose some solutions, further discuss, until a consensus is reached). I'll see you there. The Transhumanist 20:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You did not, and still have not, responded to my last comments and proposal on the talk page, where the majority of participants supported a merge. And the changes I made, rather than being a complete merge as originally proposed, were a simple move of content to their appropriate pages. It's absolutely silly to split content between different articles, as you have done.  K . Bog  21:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The criterion of self-publication
You recently deleted some conent I added to the MIRI article, arguing that the content was self-published. The OPP is a charity evaluator and has an editorial process for its reports, so the contents of those reports do not count as self-published according to my understanding of WP:RS. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, you are right, but the LessWrong post is not notable, since it's not published at all - it's just a forum/blog post.  K . Bog  17:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be patient
We ran into this before. I am cleaning up the page. You don't know where this is going and you are restoring policy violating content.

Instead of getting into a situation where we need to escalate this, please be patient.

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we did run into this before, because you are continuing the same bad behavior as before. I know where this is going, you are deleting good content because you were triggered by primary sources that did not violate Wikipolicy. But I already wrote that I was editing, which is why I was trying to stop you from changing it. What do you mean by "escalate"? Feel free.  K . Bog  18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We worked this out at the talk page. Be careful what you ask for by the way. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh come off it if you are going to make a threat then be specific and back it up. I don't have time for this silliness.  K . Bog  19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Eliezer Yudkowsky ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eliezer_Yudkowsky check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eliezer_Yudkowsky?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Stuart Russell
 * Marxism ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Marxism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Marxism?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to James A. Robinson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eliezer Yudkowsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuart Russell ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eliezer_Yudkowsky check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eliezer_Yudkowsky?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop, and take a breath
Your editing at Machine Intelligence Research Institute is very, very clear advocacy; you are pushing past both behavioral and content guidelines.

Please stop and think.

If you continue, I will seek a TBAN; it would already be very easy to show the community the pattern of your behavior.

Very easy.

So please take a deep breath and reconsider your approach to this article. Jytdog (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is clear advocacy when I am preserving content that meets all of Wikipedia's policy guidelines, and removing a tag whose original motivation is no longer present. No, I'm keeping the article high quality and comprehensive. Perhaps you should think more about behavioral and content guidelines before trying to make threats of TBANning to get your way in an edit war.  K . Bog  04:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. That is the problem; you are aiming at the wrong thing. Please stop and reconsider your approach. Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is the wrong thing to aim at having comprehensive content that meets Wikipedia's policy guidelines? Perhaps you know more about the TBAN process than me, for it seems that you've been TBANned before, but I rather doubt that pursuing comprehensive content that meets Wikipedia's policy guidelines is a basis for getting a TBAN. If you can tell me what I should reconsider, then I'll happily do it, but so far you haven't pointed anything out (aside from reverting too much, which is fair, but a single click does not constitute an "approach"). I'm sorry, I can see that you have some sincerity here, but I'm at a bit of a loss to see what you actually want, other than "shut up and let Jytdog win the argument".  K . Bog  04:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am talking about all of your edits and your behavior on the talk page. The pattern is clear and will be clear if it comes to me needing to show it.
 * It is impossible to reach consensus when you are aiming at the wrong thing. You are not simply summarizing what sources aboutMIRI say, but are doing something else.
 * Please stop and reconsider.
 * I am always sincere.
 * You will of course do as you please. I have no more to say here.Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The pattern is that lots of people are trying to screw up the article, so I push each of them back. Of course there's a pattern there, and it exists because of a pattern displayed by other people: to slap silly maintenance tags as weapons to win edit wars, to make spurious complaints about this particular article, to exhibit paranoia about "advocacy" or whatever the bugaboo of the month is. Now you're just *begging* me to let you get your way, which is sad to see.  K . Bog  04:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of taking a breath and hearing the problems you are a) digging in, and b) personalizing this. That is what you have chosen to do.  I will start preparing the TBAN request; the diff above will be useful in that request. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean, instead of agreeing with you, I'm disagreeing. Yes, this happens sometimes: people will disagree with you. It's rather bizarre that you object that I'm "personalizing" things when you've been threatening TBAN attempts and repeatedly assuming or insinuating bad faith from the start.  K . Bog  16:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not said or insinuated "bad faith". I think you are doing everything you do in good faith, aimed at the wrong thing. It is a matter of misunderstanding the mission of WP and how the editing community realizes it.  I am almost done writing the TBAN request; edits like this where you make your complete refusal to engage with the mission and what the P&G call for so very clear, are doing my work for me. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You've consistently accused me of advocacy, writing fancruft, doing bad scholarship, and made vague insinuations about being driven by "something other than making Wikipedia better" (paraphrase quote) and so on. I'm aiming at a high quality comprehensive article that doesn't get butchered. Good luck with your TBAN request.  K . Bog  17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have described what you are doing as off mission, yes. Advocacy is off mission. You aren't listening.  Thanks for the good luck wish, but luck is not needed here.  Just your diffs. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being an advocate is writing in bad faith, and I am not doing advocacy.  K . Bog  17:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * more unrestrained, off-mission behavior from you. I have been looking for your response in the "arbitrary break" section, looking at the bottom of the thread, where new comments go. I just saw that you had the audacity to insert your responses within mine. Please don't do that. It makes it almost impossible for people reading the thread afterward to see who was saying what, and somebody looking for a response on a long page -- as I have been doing -- will not even see that you replied. This is 100% in line with your unrestrained advocacy, ignoring basic norms of communication and editing. I fixed it in this diff and this diff. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange. Responding point by point is standard practice to make things more readable, not less. Have you been on any forum besides Wikipedia...? Have you seen that it is entirely common on vbulletin boards, on Reddit boards, on Facebook, and so on? I had no idea that this would violate any "basic norms of communication and editing". Yet the behavior on your part is to (once again) assume bad faith, as if having different norms of editing were some form of "unrestrained advocacy." This is quite silly. Normally I'd just be inclined to say "I didn't know, no one ever said anything about that, I'm sorry", but if you're just going to use it as a springboard for continued attacks then I don't know what to do.  K . Bog  16:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. It is not standard and as I said, it a) destroys the coherence of the first person's post and b) makes it very hard for people reading it afterwards to understand who said what. It is just selfish. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't doubt whether it was standard on Wikipedia, I asked you to stop assuming bad faith. Instead, you're doubling down by calling it 'selfish' that anyone would not know about this point of etiquette.  K . Bog  16:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is none of those places, and you keep treating it like it is and refusing to learn. Refusing. Fighting like hell every step of the way. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I literally just affirmed that it's standard on Wikipedia. I said I didn't doubt you. Obviously I learned, I just asked you to cease the moralistic haranguing. I don't see how that is "refusing" and "fighting like hell".  K . Bog  17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you wrapped up any possible acknowledgement in attack. Please stop, before reading the rest of this, and take a breath.


 * You are way too aggressive for somebody who barely understands what we do here and how we do it. This is not social media or a blog.  You treat it like it is; instead of learning you argue and flame. You interpret efforts to teach you as flaming you.  It is just about hopeless. I tried to reach out in a different way this time but you brought it down to the same social media flame war level. That is your framework, not mine.  So we are done.  I have no more to say here and will be filing the TBAN shortly.  I was putting it off with the hope that you would indeed take a breath and change, but I don't do social media flamewars. This is not social media and trying to engage with you, when you are working within the framework of social media, is not productive.
 * This is Wikipedia. The only way I can think to get you to engage with the reality of that, is the TBAN proposal.  So off I go to finish it.  Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have been too aggressive. I still do not believe that I am the main person at fault here, or that your interpretation of me is largely correct. I understand Wikipedia quite well; missing out on a point of writing etiquette is a different story. There is a lot of evil-for-thee, not-for-me implicit in the above paragraph.  K . Bog  17:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you are the problem at MIRI. Nobody agrees with you and you blow off what people are saying as "ax grinding" as in the diff above.
 * You have a fucking machine gun on your userpage saying "don't mess with my edits". It is a perfect metaphor.
 * You have been unteachable, with all this aggression. How can we teach you? Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My user page has a lot of satire, as many user pages do.
 * The way to teach me to be less aggressive is to make a persuasive case that the edits you (or others) make are not purely destructive and lacking in support from Wiki Policy. Of course, many of them aren't. But some of them are, and that's the problem with the MIRI article.  K . Bog  18:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, not accusing me of advocacy or bad scholarship, not belittling me for not getting a good enough ebook software, not wielding threats to get me TBANed, and so on, would also go along way.  K . Bog  18:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The TBAN is not a threat; it is a tool the community uses to prevent further disruption. I am informing you that I am preparing one, because as I noted above, it seems to be the only way to get you to engage with the reality of WP - what we do here, and how we do it.  I will file it, if that is what it takes to end the disruption.
 * The machine gun image isn't funny and again, is a perfect metaphor for your aggression. The problem is your approach to WP and the editing community. The TBAN request will easily demonstrate your missing the mark on the mission, your editing and arguments that are pursuing the wrong mission and ignoring key P&G in your pursuit of the wrong mission, and your aggression and unteachability each of which mean that there will be no forseeable end to this.
 * Please stop and think before you reply, and when you reply, please answer the question about how we can teach you, without placing the blame on others; please focus on the problem with your behavior. I am in no hurry to post the TBAN and would rather save everybody the drama. Please take your time. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to know how you can teach me, the conversation will inevitably involve your statements and behavior, because it is your teaching that is being discussed. It need not be a matter of blame, or vindictive, or anything like that, but it should be apparent that I can't answer this question without talking about you. I hear you perfectly sincerely, and I'd like to answer you, but you seem to be asking for something that's impossible. Perhaps there is some better way of phrasing what you have in mind?  K . Bog  18:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible for you to step back and a) consider your aggressive rejection of other's input and what you can do about that; b) consider what you understand the mission of WP to actually be (try to write it down, before going and reading anything), and what it actually is (it is stated in WP:NOT); c) consider how you have been applying the policies and guidelines in pursuit of the mission. If you like please also see User:Jytdog/How which I wrote for new users, and people who have "never gotten the memo" as it were.  Again, please take your time and when you reply, please focus on your behavior.  The TBAN request will be focused clearly on your behavior. We can address that here instead, without the drama of the boards. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I should reject others' proposed edits is a matter of Wikipedia policies and general editorial discretion. It wouldn't make any sense to presume that, just because I've been too aggressive, that I am wrong in preferring this or that version of the article. As for rejecting edits aggressively, I'm not sure exactly what you are looking at. If you mean my reversions, they seem like regular BRD, since I had good basis for disputing those changes; the only problem there was that I reverted too many times, and that was just an oversight that won't happen in the foreseeable future simply because I have been reminded to pay attention to an issue that I otherwise don't encounter very often.
 * More likely, you mean my statements that impute some ill will or failure on the part of others, e.g. "you don't get to claim that you are unbiased if you have an axe to grind, whether it's negative or positive", "This is the kind of problem that articles have when people start revising them without paying any attention to the basic process of writing content", "Maybe you should think more about this sort of thing before throwing accusations around", "That's rather arrogant on your part," "This is pointless bickering," "By the way, you're wrong about the Kernel article as well", "Perhaps you should think more about behavioral and content guidelines before trying to make threats of TBANning to get your way in an edit war," "a pattern displayed by other people: to slap silly maintenance tags as weapons to win edit wars, to make spurious complaints about this particular article, to exhibit paranoia about 'advocacy' or whatever the bugaboo of the month is", and so on. That seems to fully comprise you are referring to. When I look at these comments, I notice that none of them were thought-out early statements about the article content itself, but hasty reactions to statements from other people as the content discussion descended into pure argument. So I can do two things about that. One, I can take more time to read and respond to people's comments, so that I don't have a hasty reaction. Two, if someone disparages my intentions or scholarship abilities, or disparages the content without writing sufficient rationale, I can say something along the lines of "you're not giving a substantive reason to change the content of the article, so please make a more topical statement before proposing any changes," or "that may be your impression, but my impression is different, and you haven't given any examples," and sticking to that sort of mantra will allow me to respond to such claims in a manner that is satisfactory without causing anyone to feel attacked. Those two approaches seem like they would be sufficient.
 * I've also been reminded that the TBAN, ABAN, and RFC systems exist for these sorts of things, so I will have more faith that if anyone gets too far out of line in terms of making personal attacks or violating Wikipedia guidelines, I can simply request them to prevent anyone from going too far, and this confidence will prevent me from worrying too much about anyone's behavior.
 * Your "How" page seems pretty reasonable, and it looks like material that I've always agreed with, except for your omission of the importance of published primary sources for scholarly subjects, which ought to be distinguished from other things like company websites and press releases.  K . Bog  19:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The long paragraph is sort of helpful, and in the right direction. I am not asking you to be nicey nice. I don't give a fuck about nicey nice. The "aggression" is in not stopping and listening but rather insisting on things that are dead wrong in policy. If you really understand that what we do is summarize sources (not comment on them) -- if you have actually wrapped your head around that -- how do you justify your response in this exchange: me The cited document doesn't mention MIRI - this content saying "MIRI's research was cited in a research priorities document..." is pure commentary by who over wrote this. you No, that is a straightforward statement of fact, which is different from commentary. I presume that we do make straightforward statements of fact all the time. Your response is breath-taking in how adamantly wrong it is, if you understand what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely, if you have a source, then you can report what's in the source. MIRI was cited by the cited document: papers produced at MIRI were cited in the writing, and listed in the references. It's straightforward to find. Similarly, if I have a book where Bob describes the taxonomy of ferns, my citation can say "in this book, Bob describes the taxonomy of ferns," even though no part of the book literally says "I am describing the taxonomy of ferns." I don't think that would be commentary, and that's basically what's going on here. When I said, "it is a straightforward statement of fact," I did not mean "but it's true, so it can go in the article," I meant "it is directly reporting the content of the source, so it can go in." To be sure, in the case you are quoting, it was a very minor thing that was perhaps being given undue weight by the article. So maybe it's undue weight, or non-notable, sure. It's certainly not a true summary, but you can't truly summarize the sources you use, you summarize the parts of them that are most relevant to the article in question (this, I assume, is uncontroversial). And all this is perfectly in accordance with Wikipedia policy as far as I have seen.  K . Bog  02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * x2 while you fiddled with your irrelevant taxonomy example.   The example in our exchange above, is pure commentary. It is distinct from how you used primary sources elsewhere, where you grab some bit to say about it that is actually in it like "Soares and Fallenstein propose that autonomous AI systems instead be designed to inductively learn the values of humans from observational data".   The thing being quoted is absolutely not what we do here. Off mission; off P&G, pure scrabbling for just something to say based on the thinnest possible thread and basically promotional, with you giving some sort of "credit" to MIRI for being important in that other document, that no independent source gives.  There is no way this is correct in letter or spirit of what we do here.  If you had come even close to acknowledging what a stretch this is, I would keep going here. As it is, I am done - your response above is what I mean about aggressive, and not understanding.  You are unteachable.  My next note here will be the notice.  Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a very narrow technical issue of whether the mere act of citing something counts as content that is written by the source author, or as a higher-order aspect of the source material that must be interpreted by another source in order to be considered verified by encyclopedic standards. I can see that you disagree about it, but I have seen nothing in Wiki Policy (neither its letters nor its spirit) that settles the matter, and I'm very puzzled by the demand that I must change my mind about it when you have not given any reasons, have not cited any Wiki Policies, and have not addressed the example I gave.  K . Bog  02:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is a perfect microcosm of the consistent problems. We will never settle the MIRI page.  Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

File:How2savecontent.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:How2savecontent.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)