Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JasonAJensenUSA

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

User:JasonAJensenUSA


Violates User pages as "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Does not attack any specific user. Only talks about general editing experience on Wikipedia. Has a copy of the exchange between myself and User:DavidLeighEllis who obviously likes controlling what is said. He doesn't believe in WP:AGF and promotes banning would be editors that disagree with him. He has not referenced any specific perceived attack and asked me to remove it - he has simply marked my page for deletion. Its a good thing I copied the exchange as he has deleted it from his talk page. Per WP:User Page I can compile. "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as an attack page. As far as I can see, JasonAJensenUSA has been engaged in BLB edit wars with several editors including DavidLeighEllis. JasonAJensenUSA has repeatedly added content that is not neutral. The text of the sources I have read simply do not match the content he has repeatedly attempted to add. The user's page can only be interpreted as his frustration with DavidLeighEllis reverting his unacceptable BLP edits and should be immediately deleted.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This request seems to violate the policies for nomination for deletion. First, no attempt to reconcile the page. No reference to specific cases of sections that "can be viewed as attacking other editors". I don't see anything on the page that is an attack or "recording of perceived [flaw]". Again, this user DavidLeighEllis got notice that his name was mentioned on my user page and immediately nominated it for deletion. Most of what is on this page has to do with my experiences as an editor and the hostility I have received to attempting to join the community.
 * What content have I added that is not neutral? Again, WHAT SECTIONS/COMMENTS/PARTS are ATTACKS? Plus, that edit to E. Fuller Torrey WAS NOT MY EDIT. I reverted an edit from an IP user as there was NO REASON given for the removal.
 * This is exactly what I am talking about on my user page. Wikipedia is a hostile place. You cannot enter as you are bound to make a error with ANY NUMBER OF NUMEROUS RULES which are impossible to find and often conflicting. Then on top of that - if you don't like it you will just be deleted. Again, WHAT IS AN ATTACK ON THIS PAGE. This page has nothing to do with my frustration of DavidLeighEllis as he is just one of many. You claim, "s far as I can see, JasonAJensenUSA has been engaged in BLB edit wars with several editors including DavidLeighEllis." Who besides DavidLeighEllis? And how was it an edit war? NO MENTION IN THE COMMENT SECTION FOR THE REASON OF THE REMOVAL. You say "JasonAJensenUSA has repeatedly added content that is not neutral." What content? Where? How is it not neutral? You say "The text of the sources I have read simply do not match the content he has repeatedly attempted to add." What did I repeatedly attempt to add? What are you DavidLeighEllis buddy? And my complaint was not that he reverted the content but how he did it and then the warning I received that was unwarranted.
 * Again, no mention of ANYTHING specific on the page that is problematic. Just wild accusations on a user page that is not encyclopedic and doesn't have the same strict requirements.
 * Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't you think your user page is pretty hostile? I have written things here that have been reverted by others sometimes incorrectly, but I have never thrown a tantrum and written an attack page as my user page.  People have arguments all the time over content, what is NPOV and what is not.  Sometimes it leads to drama but most people get over it and find a way to reach agreement.  Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and sometimes editors are going to get their feelings hurt.  That is life and not specific hostility directed at you or anyone else.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No I don't. And as stated - PLEASE POINT THEM OUT. More than willing to talk about any of it. WHY IS IT SO WRONG? Do you ever read these policies? Or what you say you mean? I am not a idiot. I know lots of things about lots of things. All contributions are purposeful. The whole page is just UNACCEPTABLE? Why? Where is the half truth. How is it not an account of my dealings here. How does that NOT BENEFIT WIKIPEDIA. It is literally a tribute to the introduction of this place and it's policies. AS PER YOUR POLICIES THAT IS THE UTMOST AND MOST IMPORTANT. There is no hurt feelings over here. Only a dispute over the validity of getting some sort of official warning. Something that is completely pertinent to the operations of Wikipedia. Per your policies I am a customer and here are my complaints. How can you decide, unilaterally and inexplicably, if they are valid? I understand completely that criticism of how your operating is not always welcome but don't invite someone to due it then torch him at the stake after it has been done. How is your reference to me "throwing a tantrum" any less of a personal attack? How is it NOT a belittlement of me and my character. I have done no damage to Wikipedia. At most, you could claim that I wasted someone's time. Now if you want to ban me - then do it. But you will hear exactly what I think about it the whole process. I failed here, then there, and finally retracted into my own user page to try to get understanding - and refuse to accept that you can determine that I have failed there.

---
 * I say you can't live up to your guidelines. I say you are all Hippocrates.
 * See BITE TO WHIT "Avoid tagging an article for speedy deletion within seconds of creation, as an unexperienced author might still be working on it or trying to figure something out."
 * See BITE TO WHIT "The principle Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them."
 * See Be_bold TO WHIT "Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD) can be explained in three words: "Just do it" The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought—Why aren't these pages copy edited? Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator". Be bold and drop your opinion there!"
 * See Five_pillars TO WHIT "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected."

-
 * So.. If you are going to continue as you have. I can easily recommend that you remove all policies as to being "bold" or "ignoring rules" or any number of things. I can do so for MANY reasons, a non-exclusive list could be, a) you can't live up to them b) don't mean what you say c) invite things you can't handle the upkeep on d) give a false impression that diminishes the value of wikipedia. I know, from my point of view, the value of this site has been irreplaceably damaged. And that's fine. Glad to meet the REAL Wikipedia. No skin off my back. But I'll tell you what - I will tell my story to whomever will listen.
 * So delete the page. You have all the power of force. Your right cause you can just make it how you say. But don't delude yourself about what your doing. All this time. You have made 2 posts, User:DavidLeighEllis has made numerous. And if you pointed a gun to my head and told you I had to explain what NPOV was I'd say what Forrest Gump [kinda] said "It's whatever you say it is." Not something I think you should be proud of. Its not the kind of community that does great and good things. It's not something I would ever want to be part of. If banned - I will wear it as a badge of honor from today out. Maybe I'll even buy a t-shirt. Promote the idea. It'll be like a nerd's version of fight club. The absurdity of this whole event is outrageous.
 * The editors here are volunteers. We figure out how to cooperate partly by policy and partly by figuring out how to work with each other. It's not easy and perhaps you are too sensitive.  It takes time to understand the culture and policies here, so my suggestion is go slow and see how things work.  I don't know if you will be blocked, but trying to make a point--which you are really doing a bad job of--wastes people's time.  Keep in mind that the ultimate goal here is to build an encyclopedia.  I think I have given you the best advice I can, it is up to you now.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well thank you, quite literally, for nothing. You haven't clarified things. You have just simply taken a side. You have no reasoning for your position and, in my opinion, that makes it invalid. Too sensitive? How am I sensitive. Stop trying to insinuate that I am defective or emotional or something is wrong with my thinking. You have this thing NPOV and I contend that it just means that you will have your way. It is not rational. It is not even explicable. Its just this founding principal that defines what can and cannot be said. So the fact that I reverted another author's page edits that were removed by User:DavidLeighEllis without explanation and tried to edit them and work on the page with another author is completely irrelevant? How else are you supposed to get people to help collaborate on a page - especially with new comers? How is what I did any worse than what he did? And why does my user page need to be controlled? It is nothing but an account of my interaction and my thoughts? How is that not inviolate to Wikipedia? How are my actions not in alignment with the goal of building an encyclopedia? To date, I have made maps that show states that have AOT or CTOs see Outpatient_commitment which took time and was not easy to do. I edited Kendra%27s_Law to make it have nice tables and added 2 more studies that have a differing opinion. Something else that took time. It is not POV just because it is opposite of what was there. I did a lot of work on Talk:Treatment_Advocacy_Center To try to start discussion. The best I got from another editor was I didn't have "consensus". When I found this page Don%27t_revert_due_to_"no_consensus" he just kinda went away. Even though he was so adamant about preventing me from making my edits. But there, I let him revert my edits. I tried doing everything right. I opened a discussion. Archived old 2005 talk page edits to help facilitate the ease of that. To date I have been on Wikipedia for a week or so but have put weeks into learning the ropes. And you don't make it easy, are not polite, imho are downright hostile. Like saying me making a point is a "waste of time" and that I am doing a "bad job of" it - just goes on to support this hostile environment. So you can't point to anything specific. You can't recommend any edit to my page. But you do recommend my work be deleted and you won't retract that position even though you are mysterious in how you reached that conclusion. Okies..... its a bit like teaching a kid to swim by throwing them into the deep and then walking away. I think you violate Wikipedia policy as much as I ever did. I think User:DavidLeighEllis does too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonAJensenUSA (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussions Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Plus- I don't know if you know this - but this isn't the easiest site to use. So I tried to edit on a "live" page with another user. It could have been move to the talk page. Any number of things could have happened. My whole point is what did happen was the gestapo came out of the shadows and pounced. Furthermore, I can tell you that for sure, the amount of vandalism you get is directly proportional to your attitude towards users. My user page has pictures, references to numerous articles, videos from other users feeling the same way and their examples. And you determined "Speedy delete as an attack page. As far as I can see, JasonAJensenUSA has been engaged in BLB edit wars with several editors including DavidLeighEllis. JasonAJensenUSA has repeatedly added content that is not neutral. The text of the sources I have read simply do not match the content he has repeatedly attempted to add. The user's page can only be interpreted as his frustration with DavidLeighEllis reverting his unacceptable BLP edits and should be immediately deleted.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)"

Let me ask you: how did you come to these remarkable conclusions that fall very much in line with DavidLeighEllis's POV? Also, where did your contempt for me arise? What possible reason is there for you to immediately delete the work I am doing on the user page? Wasting space is it?

Sorry, but I think your just trying to help DavidLeighEllis out. It's noble I guess. He does spend numerous hours on here doing a vital, tedious, and daunting never ending task of trying to control the blood loss of vandalism. Not something I would do. Not something I was intending to do. I mean 1200+ edits? Nah. Not for me. But then again how many of them are just mechanical and authoritarian in nature? How many incidents have there been like mine? Where just a misunderstanding of intent and reasoning lead to the elimination of a resource? And for what? Who benefits from that?

I can promise you this - your efforts are counterproductive. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly violates WP:UP, as "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws". Editors are not allowed to maintain pages in their userspace criticising another editor's stance in a content dispute. A general essay about alleged faults with Wikipedia in general would be OK, but this page clearly doesn't fall into that category, as specific named editors are singled out for criticism. The only exception to this rule is temporary pages collecting evidence for one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, such as arbitration, but I see no indication that this page is going to be used in this way. If someone removes a discussion from their talk page (which they are allowed to do) it is still available in the edit history and there is no need to post copies of it elsewhere. Hut 8.5 20:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What a farce. Everything you put needs to have backing for credibility but snippets showing what you're talking about have to be deleted. And why? Tell the freekin truth for one and stop hiding behind bs "guidelines". You don't like the page and seek to control the discussion. Well I found pages that say to do what you believe is needed. None of you even address my concerns and NOT ONE OF YOU HAS RECOMMENDED ANY CHANGES. Proving your true motive of censorship.Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your own linked page says it all "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason." Well I have a really very good reason and have explained it. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus NO ONE can find a diff unless they know where to look. It isn't searchable or indexed which defeats the whole point. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop accusing everyone else of trying to censor you, it really isn't going to help your case. Assume good faith. The people here are merely trying to enforce the guidelines, and the guidelines exist for a reason. Pages which criticise other editors are antagonistic without being productive or useful. Wikipedia has a number of ways of constructively resolving disputes between editors, and writing attack pages is not one of them. The only reason you have to maintain this information is to criticise other named editors, and that is not a good reason. If you want a constructive suggestion I would suggest removing everything on the page that directly relates to individual named editors, as essays about Wikipedia in general are usually acceptable. Hut 8.5 21:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to build credibility without examples. It is exactly like a citation on an encyclopedia page. Nothing is going to "help my case" as Wikipedia is run by a self-serving mob. I am not trying to resolve a dispute. I am trying discuss the crap people do on wikipedia. I don't know if you guys are shallow or what but no one cares about the guy that initiated the delete request. Again he is just one of many. This problem is rampant. Rules rules rules... meanwhile work on the page cannot continue. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're just here to grandstand and complain then I suggest you go elsewhere. Hut 8.5 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. My intent was to complain on my userpage. But you cannot allow that. Your suggestion is heard and dismissed - mostly because this whole thing is a joke. Rules.. blah blah.. Rules.. blah blah. Whatever WP:ZOMBIE. WIKIPEDIA SUCKS. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And with childish comments like that there is no reason for anyone else to take you at all seriously. I've tried to explain the concerns that people have with your userpage and to suggest ways of resolving those concerns, but you clearly aren't interested in having a remotely constructive discussion. Hut 8.5 23:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither are you. "Remove everything that references editors" also removes all credibility. Imagine a encyclopedia page with 0 citations. So you address nothing but state the same as the one who nominated the page for deletion. I have tried to have a constructive conversation but you can talk to a wall only so long.

Like you say its an attack page. Well I mention one guys comment from 9/11 who I have never interacted with. Why would I attack him? Or is it just any negative reference to someone's actions an "attack"? So how do you examine Wikipedia behavior? No wonder it's so messed around here. All anyone does is monitor changes and revert everything while screaming about rules. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:UP - editors seems to be on the wrong path - mentorship might be a solution.Moxy (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Go ahead and delete it - I depart with my page. I would never let a bunch of hippocrate bureaucrats mentor me. WP:ZOMBIE says it all... Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.