User talk:Jonathanhusky

Hello, Jonathanhusky, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Jonathanhusky, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22: Free Culture Friday
You are invited to Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday at Prime Produce on Friday, November 22. This event will feature a reception with Wikimedia Foundation staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal salon and game night, utilizing Prime Produce's vast collection of board games. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Friday, November 22, 2024 1:30 pm – 7:00 pm Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St
November 26: Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment
You are also invited to Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment, the third event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series, at Jefferson Market Library on Tuesday, November 26, in collaboration with WikiPortraits and AfroCROWD. All are welcome to attend, especially those interested in photography or contributing to Wikimedia Commons. We will explore the art of capturing the moment through photography and learn the basics of Wikimedia Commons, and (weather-permitting) we are also planning a photo walk, so bring your camera (or use your smartphone)! Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:00 pm – 8:00 pm Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave RSVP on Eventbrite is required for event entry!
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I was pretty shocked to see this edit of yours at this Rfc at Talk:Storrs, Connecticut, in which you not only changed a comment of mine (forbidden by WP:TPO), but you also changed my Rfc vote from 'Opposed' to 'Support'. I believe that may win you the prize for the most flagrant violation of WP:TPO of 2024! (relax; it's gonna be okay.) Luckily for you and for the Rfc, Liz came by and reverted your edit, saving the situation and keeping it from getting worse, or having any ill effects on the Rfc.

So, here's the thing: you are still a brand new editor, and you didn't know, so it's okay. But please don't edit another editor's comment again: not a word, no fixing grammar or a typo, not even adding a required comma. (There are exceptions which you can learn about later, but for now, please just don't.)

On another topic: I noticed that so far, all of your edits are on the Storrs article, 3/4 of them on the Talk page. That's okay, but I'm just wondering if you have other interests you might like to explore. Wikipedia is a big place, with lots of articles in need of attention, and I'm sure some of them could benefit from your assistance. You might even find them easier going, than a topic like Storrs which you appear to be pretty close to. Let me know if you need any assistance in finding other topics to work on as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I did not change anyone's comment whatsoever. This can easily be verified by looking at the actual text that makes up the comment; none was changed. On your point, I didn't, haven't, and don't plan to edit others' comments.

The issue comes when editors (in this case, including yourself, but not exclusively) wrote "opposed" when their comments support the suggested change. For some, it was obvious they were confused and believed the RFC was about a page name change or some other particular which it isn't and wasn't.

What I did was place a sticky note on top, not change any comment. To insinuate so and accuse without looking at the actual data is inappropriate - and, well, it's not my fault if people say one thing but mean another. Actually, I was standing up for the actual material of the comment, not just counting "yes or no". And I'm always willing to read an editor's point as to why they disagree, but, I can't be faulted for responding to those points if they're relevant.

In your case, you supported the suggested improvement being discussed in a comment from October 9th - if that analysis is somehow incorrect, please provide additional supporting details in the relevant section on the talk page. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said,

With all due respect, I did not change anyone's comment whatsoever.

If you go to your edit of 05:13, 5 December 2024, here, and scroll down from the Lead Section RFC heading to the response by Mathglot of 22:59, 8 October 2024, then you will see the following text (in superscript fontbetween the bullet point symbol beginning that comment, and the first word of the comment:

Actually Supports: see their comment – (linked, and in superscript font in the original)

So, yes, in my view, you edited that comment. It is surprising to me that right after you were reverted by Liz, you went back in and tried to do something similar with your blue boxes (and I won't be surprised if they get removed as well). I give you credit for respecting the letter of the TPO guideline, but it is reminiscent of the student in school pushing the envelope to see exactly what they can get away with, creeping right up to the edge of the rules, and maybe half a step beyond, or maybe not.

Just stop. Make comments relevant to the Rfc if you must, although after this many comments, everyone knows your opinion by now; saying it 30 times, won't affect the closer's view of your arguments. Really, the best thing now is to just wind it down at the Rfc, and let it take its course. Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to respond to new arguments and point out when someone is repeating an old one. Maybe if a new respondent actually read what other editors said they wouldn't be so quick with their quill. And no, I never edited your or anyone else's comment - nor ever intended to. It didn't happen like that, so please stop saying it did. Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree on that last point. To your first point, see WP:BLUDGEON. But I sense a lot of combativeness from you, both at Talk:Storrs, as well as here in discussion with you, even while I am trying to help you maintain your status as an editor in good standing (albeit with a temporary topic ban partial block). Wikipedia has a term for that: it's called a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, and that is not something that works well in a collegial, collaborative environment.

We achieve what we do here through collaboration and discussion, in an attempt to achieve consensus. Please take this temp TBAN PBLOCK as a learning experience, and a time when you can do a reset. If you are used to contentious corners of social media, where battling it out is the name of the game, then I have to tell you, this is not that. We are here to build an online encyclopedia, and that's it. If you would like to, and are able to contribute to that, then great! You will be welcome with open arms. If you see it more as a way to just argue with other people, like maybe you are used to maybe on social media, I dunno, then you will eventually end up getting a longer block next time, and eventually an indefinite block.

It really comes down to why you are here, and what you would like to achieve. If you feel like responding to that, I would genuinely like to know: why are you here, and what would you like to achieve? Mathglot (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's really funny. I understood all of those words but the experience hasn't lived up to it.

Factual edits that are supported through properly cited reliable, including both official and secondary, sources should not be reverted and a whole discussion having to get started because, god forbid the same edit gets made now that's not allowed since a discussion began.

I understand consensus. But when no one actually follows the rules on that it shouldn't count. So yeah, the requested page name change last never never should have counted. Not really, and the reasons for that have been explained - I'm not trying to do a BATTLEGROUND attitude, but I have the right to defend against opposing claims.

If you didn't notice, I asked questions in response to claims made by editors. Like, "where did you find that" and "could you tell me more". I actually do care to hear what they have to say! Shucks no one cared to actually answer those questions, which presumably are the keys to their point. I give you credit: you linked what you were talking about.

If this all-knowing "closer" can tell the actual difference between properly sourced claims and entirely irrelevant comments, then let's put our faith in them. But come on - one person said "The article clearly mentions a place named Storrs" (practically [sic]) - That's literally the type of phrasing that we are discussing and having that be the basis of a counted vote or whatever it's called here isn't right.

I'm all for consensus if we actually play by the rules and don't let half-baked comments determine things. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I just read the ANI thread about your activity at the Storrs article, and what really comes through there, is again the combativeness, and battleground attitude, including comments directed at admins, not the kind of attention you want to attract early on. (Someone at the ANI thread also mentioned WP:BATTLEGROUND, as well as WP:BLUDGEON). This month-long TBAN PBLOCK will eventually blow over, and you will be able to edit Storrs again. I'm an experienced editor and have a good nose for how these things go, and imho, the major issue for you to address if you want to be able to continue to edit Wikipedia, is your attitude. If that doesn't change, I believe you will be permanently blocked from editing. But it doesn't have to be that way, and your future here is entirely up to you. I hope you will choose to become a productive editor who is here to improve and build the encyclopedia. It is entirely in your own hands, and I will assist you, if you want help. Mathglot (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to provide a wealth of reliable sources, well-written edits, and actually back up my claims. But I get accused. I never bludgeoned. Or at least didn't mean to.

If this is all about the how I did things, as an experienced editor if you say so yourself, look at the why.

Or at least ask someone to fix that goddamn dead reference, one of the few on there in the first place. We discussed why it isn't even a good one, or one we should be using - but until that "closer" comes in with their magic wand or whatever it's a courtesy one could give to that citation.

And not for nothing, the edits I made recently to the transportation section is some of the most love that article has seen for content. It's a thin piece to begin with, and we all know it should be merged. But all that transportation detail can be added verbatim as part of that merge. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have never doubted your good-faith, just your manner of going about it. You are still a very new editor here, so despite the TBAN PBLOCK, I have to tell you that you are being treated with kid gloves. It would likely have gone much worse for an experienced editor who had done all that, as they should know better. Now that you have trod this path, next time you will be expected to know, so do try and pick up on what admins and others are telling you, as it won't go so easy next time, at least for things that you already know about.

All this is bound to set anyone's nerves jangling; honestly, if I were you, I would just take a break from Wikipedia for a few days at least, just get out and see your friends, or do stuff you enjoy. It'll still be here when you get back, and you'll be better able to put things in perspective, hopefully. This is about it for me for today, so take care! Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh dear; well, I see you have now been blocked from editing that article. I can't say I'm surprised, and regardless how you view my messages to you here, my intention has been to help you and keep you out of trouble, but it appears that I wasn't quick enough, and events have moved faster than I was able to advise you to let go at the Rfc.

This isn't a great start, but it isn't the end of the world, either; your article block will end in a month, and that leaves you 6.7 million other articles you can edit. I am still willing to help you get on board successfully at Wikipedia if you wish to, and would welcome your efforts at other articles. Perhaps choose something you are not so close to, but have some interest in learning about. Are you aware of the changing views of archaeologists in the last ten or twenty years about when and from where people arrived in the Americas? Or would you like to contribute to some other topic, and learn as you go? Let me know if you want assistance; every article except Storrs is open to you. Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it does truly mean anything, I appreciate the discussion we have had. But at the same time I will repeat fine advice: Stand up for what you believe in, but also here on Wikipedia, take a look at the verified reliable sources. That means if you support something, make it more clear.

Those sources are crystal clear in how the changes I suggested pertain to Storrs-Mansfield. If you're into helping people edit responsibly, tell them to stop "bludgeoning" that Storrs is a (not "the") common, unofficial name without responding to the actual question. The common name thing was never disputed in the RFC - and the suggested text didn't exclude it. South Korea was one of the first examples brought up.

Hell, even the "sticky notes" was intended to make the discussion easier to understand. Whether or not administrators got butthurt over the initial method, that part has to be recognized.

There will probably be other articles I make edits to. That is yet to be seen. If anyone cared to look, I've already made a handful on unrelated topics. Oh well, Some guy who wasn't even a part of anything close to relevant topic blocked me. That's not fair, and even if they think it was, the RFC nor the merge proposal aren't "closed" like everyone says it will be (or should be) - and a decision should be rendered before I am sentenced like this.

Perhaps you can initiate that process. Jonathanhusky (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) : Ironic that I just left this message, and roughly at the same time, you added three blue boxes at the Rfc under the comments of other users, pointing out that you viewed their Oppose votes as actually a Support vote based on something else they said. While you have correctly interpreted the letter of WP:TPO and avoided changing other editors' comments (thank you for that!) it seems like you are violating the spirit of it perhaps. If not, those blue boxes still look pretty out of place and disruptive for an ongoing Rfc, and anyway, interpreting other user's comments and deciding what another user meant is not your role, especially as you already have about 30 edits to that Rfc. Really, you are skirting WP:BLUDGEONING territory, if not already in it. If I were you, I would just let the Rfc play out, and just be a spectator for a while. You don't have to respond to every single comment. A closer will come around at some point, and it will be their role to close the Rfc, and interpret user comments. As a highly involved participant yourself, you should dnot be doing that. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best path forward for you now, imho, would be to revert your last edit there that added those blue boxes. It is not a requirement, and as an involved editor myself, I certainly cannot tell you what to do, but I think it would go better for you if you did. Best, Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no other editor's comments were ever changed. In an effort to improve the presentation of the "sticky notes" and include the referenced support comment, yes, I added boxes under the initial comment that editors wrote "opposed" in.

However, they are not disruptive if they are in fact true.

...interpreting other user's comments and deciding what another user meant is not your role...

Then I would encourage you and other editors to, I don't know, actually say the right thing when you're making a comment. If your opinion changed or if "opposed" didn't ever really represent the comment, then change it to "support". Don't leave "opposed" up!

Whether or not that is my role is not relevant. I am allowed to respond to points, including inconsistencies. The boxes have been comment-signed with my username.

If they're really such an issue then this magical "closer" shouldn't be reading between the lines so much anyway! Jonathanhusky (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your disruptive editing which you did not stop despite several warnings by other editors, you have been blocked for one month from editing Storrs, Connecticut and Talk: Storrs, Connecticut. Taking your disruptive editing pattern elsewhere on the encyclopedia will lead to additional sanctions, which may be more extensive and of greater length. So be careful. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI added to the p-block list. As I said originally, you can't engage in this sort of misconduct again, nor bludgeon the noticeboard with objections to that prohibition, regardless if there's veracity behind your reasoning or not. El_C 10:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mansfield, Connecticut. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. R0paire 21:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R0paire-wiki, in the interest of fairness, please describe in detail what specifically was "unconstructive" about my edit to the article Mansfield, Connecticut. The text was well-written and relevant, accurate, and supported by properly-referenced reliable sources - making the article about this town on par with other well-written articles about other towns.

You aren't allowed to say that every edit I could ever make to that article is by default unconstructive because that's rude, unfair, and inappropriate since you automatically removed article improvements. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the general improvements that are the issue, and you know that. Your partial block at Storrs and the outcome of your RfC are evidence to why the changes to Storrs-related content in Mansfield, Connecticut were disruptive. R0paire 21:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to remove properly-sourced and accurate improvement edits just because you disagree with the person who made those edits. If you feel you are an editor furthering the encyclopaedic purpose of improving articles, then to revert a quality edit such as mine is extremely hypocritical. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're deliberately avoiding the point. You're free to make improvements (that are not related to the block), the issue is your insertion of content in contempt of the RfC on Storrs, for which you received a partial block for on the Storrs page and ANI. R0paire 21:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what and what wasn't "in contempt", @R0paire-wiki. In detail, please, because obviously you don't believe I can determine that on my own up to your high standards.

I added multiple quality paragraphs to the Mansfield article. You're saying all of that wasn't allowed, just because you (or "the man") is butthurt because I tried going through the right processes and channels to create a consensus? Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been to ANI - if you haven't learned from that, then it's a waste of time to

Yes, subtly including disruptive edits into good edits is still disruptive editing. You tried the right process and were not successful in getting the name changed, that does not mean you try to force it through anyway. R0paire 21:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the factual edits I made at the Mansfield article. It is not disruptive to add accurate and relevant edits supported by properly-cited references.

It is an abuse of power to revert quality edits, and it's especially an abuse when you go overboard and remove more than you should. I'm gathering that's an epidemic - the guy who started the uncalled-for, accusatory, and incorrect ANI topic actually admitted he went too far in reverting my edits.

How many other times have other great edits like mine gone reverted and unchecked? If you disagree with a small, specific portion of my edit, simply change the small, specific part. To do anything more is abusive, combative, and rude. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added User talk:Phil Bridger to the pages you are blocked from editing. You were repeatedly asked not to post there yet continued, which is a form of harassment. This will very likely be the last partial block given; any further disruption will result in the block applying site wide.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, no, repeatedly did not occur - He reverted my reply (which counts as censoring), and then said "f**k off now". Hardly a professional and collegial, collaborative environment.

  The only reason I replied to their comment on the user talk page is because you and the other gang of administrators prevented me from replying at the correct venue. I told him if he feels so strongly about it, transpose it to the correct venue. He did not do so, so it is Bridger's fault and I am not allowed to be penalized.

  That's like locking a man in a cell while the trial is going on. It's rude and, frankly, Bridger should get blocked simply for his personal attack and use of obscene language directed at me. I have a right to reply to his comment, especially when they make a false claim about my edits. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mansfield, Connecticut, you may be blocked from editing. R0paire 21:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figure you are using some automated tool to do your bidding here, so this message is duplicated. As I said previously, the reversal of my properly-sourced edit is inappropriate. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Unconstructive edit: @R0paire-wiki, please see the discussion Talk:Central Corridor Rail Line#Hyphen vs. Slash as to why your edit to the article Mansfield, Connecticut was, at least in part, inappropriate (but easily explained) - any and all references to a potential train station under the Central Corridor Rail Line proposal, or any other relevant rail proposal, bear the stop name "Storrs-Mansfield".

Additionally, every other change in that same edit is also disruptive, inaccurate, and not supported by any citation whatsoever. We have discussed ad nauseum that when you remove accurate information you need a replacement source to back it up. Jonathanhusky (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R0paire-wiki, this discussion section is dedicated to notifying Jonathan of a partial block by an admin, and follow-up directly related to it by admin(s) and by Jonathan, including any questions JH might have about the scope or meaning of the block, and/or for JH to appeal the block, if he wishes. Your entries in this discussion are just stirring the pot and are not helpful to Jonathan, and this is his page. Therefore, may I ask you kindly to please refrain from discussing the Storrs article here on this page? As you are aware, Jonathan is a brand new editor just learning the ropes, and discussing the very page he is blocked from in the block discussion itself almost feels like entrapment. This seems very unfair, and conceivably your edits could be viewed by others in a poor light if it continues. As a consequence, would you kindly agree to refrain from discussing the blocked topic any further with Jonathan, at the very least for the next month, until their p-block is over? This is Jonathan's page, and he should have the last word here, so if you (R0paire) wish to discuss this further (hopefully not), then I invite you to take it up at my Talk page, or at yours, if you prefer. (Imho, the best option is just to drop it.) Jonathan has enough on his plate right now; let's just leave him in peace so he can deal with the situation, and not stir things up even further in an area where he cannot respond at the article Talk page. Hope you understand and agree; all the best to you. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R0paire-wiki: slight clarification: while I was composing this, JH's block, previously partial and applying to one article only, was extended to a general block (see next section), meaning they are limited to editing only their own page. All the more reason not to engage with Jonathan, other than to assist him, if he wishes, in dealing with the situation. Further piling on will not help. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I understand, and that's likely the best approach so I agree with you. I'll drop it from here on. Thank you. R0paire 22:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent edit warring across multiple articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)To make this edit while in the midst of the discussion above and at AN/I shows a startling lack of awareness of what the issues are with your edits and what collaboration and consensus looks like on this project.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus is not necessary for edits including unrelated accurate information that include properly referenced citations. Every single edit I have ever made regarding the village of Storrs-Mansfield has been supported by evidence and written in the proper Wikipedia format.

  In the discussion itself, some of those references were included on a larger list, not necessarily beside the text it may support, but in such a case where it would be encyclopedically relevant those sources are useful and reliable.

  You have no right to block me because I am following the rules. Jonathanhusky (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And once again, while in the midst of the discussion above and at AN/I is unfair to me because you all blocked me out of even responding over there. You are locking me in a cell before I have even had a trial, and while the trial goes on! By instituting this block, you are penalizing me unfairly. Jonathanhusky (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, please explain in detail how a well-written properly sourced edit that has nothing to do with any previous discussion is not a "useful" contribution. Jonathanhusky (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, do you want my assistance? Pushing back on an admin while blocked is likely to bring you closer to an indefinite block, and if you keep on going, possibly to being blocked from editing this, your own Talk page. You are in a moderate amount of hot water, but nothing fatal yet. The situation is completely salvageable, if you just back off for a while, and think things over. However, if you continue in this same vein, sanctions of increasing severity are likely to be applied. Just stop, and smell the roses for a bit. Come back in a few days, and ask for my help, if you want it. Your future at Wikipedia depends entirely on you. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gang of editors has made it so this is now the only page I am allowed to even type on. They are rubbing it by saying that I should have been making "useful contributions" - what was I doing when I was adding to an anemic article with worthwhile content and properly cited references?

There are real vandals on Wikipedia, they shouldn't be ganging up on me. All I have been doing is explaining myself and asking for clarification. If you or the others call that "pushing back" then obviously I'm the one who's confused. This really feels like the medieval days, like I'm being gagged.

I guess I have no choice but to "take a break" but as long as people keep showing up here, rubbing everything in, that I have no power whatsoever to respond to their changes at the correct venue, it isn't fair and any block should be lifted immediately. Jonathanhusky (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk in a few days, when the dust has settled a bit. Go out and do something you love. Looks like you have four partly sunny days in a row before the rain starts on Monday—maybe a good time for a hike? Talk when you get back. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathanhusky, this will be my only comment here as you have received a lot of feedback today and I don't want to pile-on. But step back and look at the big picture. You keep talking about what you are "allowed to do" and what you have the "right" to do and editors who have been editing this project for 5, 10, 15 years or longer are telling you "NO" to the extent that you are now blocked from editing the entire website for 2 weeks. Can you consider that you, a new editor, have an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Or are you, an editor with just 160 edits, right and everyone else is wrong? I don't see any editor coming to your defense, agreeing with your positions. So, stop thinking about your own idiosyncratic interpretations of proper conduct on Wikipedia and consider that much more experienced editors, ones who have been through hundreds or thousands of these discussion with new editors, might be correct. They are giving you advice that, if you continue to ignore, will leave you indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia and maybe your own talk page. I'll be blunt here, when your block is over, you can keep insisting that you are right in all aspects of editing and then be indefinitely blocked or you can work collaboratively, adapting to what advice editors are offering to you and continue to edit this project.

Mathglot has been very patient and generous with you, spending his time to advise you on how you need to change. He has even offered to guide you to becoming a better editor. Take advantage of his offer when your block is up, widen your circle of articles you want to work on and I think you could become a valued contributor. Like Mathglot said, this future is up to you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, Hello, this is a brief response to your comment made at WP:ANI: The accusation that I have made disruptive edits under IP addresses in September is false and unbased.

Those edits were made by the user who now has an account @UConnIPUser. They admitted as such in a discussion comment.

I have only made one, accidental, IP edit which was promptly corrected and re-signed.

Please amend your comment to reflect the fact that I am not the user who made those original edits. Jonathanhusky (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, normally I would post this notice on your talk page, but as you know, I have been unnecessarily blocked entirely from even doing that. Please amend your comment.

Additionally, your edit at The Daily Campus is inaccurate and disruptive - "Storrs-Mansfield" is and always was preferred for use in postal (address) contexts. This was thoroughly discussed on the talk page. Please undo that edit. Jonathanhusky (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Naraht: here. For some reason, he started and or is maintaining a list of all uses of the term “Storrs-Mansfield” on Wikipedia at ANI. The motives behind this need to be disclosed. However, if the reason is to discuss the correct and proper instances of the official name that should be staying, then any and all postal addresses such as found at the Daily Campus article should be edited to include Storrs-Mansfield.

Furthermore, as previously discussed any proposed or former rail station would also comport with keeping that name.

Now, once again, I respect and always have respected the common name unofficial usage of “Storrs”, but just because that’s the case does not give editors the right to eradicate the official version when that is the most appropriate form.

I would simply make these edits myself, but the gang of editors who blocked me in a cell continue to hold trial. Jonathanhusky (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "trial" as you call it is complete, the blocks that occurred are at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AJonathanhusky&type=block .

As a more general comment, a *lot* of administrators came together in agreeing to those blocks. These are experienced editors who have been voted into those positions over the years (and can be voted out). I'd guess most have actually heard of the University of Connecticut, but no guarantee. And this is definitely a situation where picking up where when the ban is over that picking up where you left off is *not* a good idea. I'd suggest finding something else you care about to work on, even if it has to do with U of Connecticut, for example, there may be improvements to Jonathan the Husky or creating any of the missing seasons of UConn Huskies women's basketball (See Category:UConn Huskies women's basketball seasons for the ones that currently exist.Naraht (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the ping was to indicate that you should be adding/editing references to any relevant address to “Storrs-Mansfield” (in this case correcting the reckless edits of another user), if it matters to you, to then add it to your list if and only if you were truly invested in maintaining the correct and accurate information previously discussed: postal addresses and train stations. And you didn’t explain why that list was made in the first place.

In specific reference to your bringing up my block unnecessarily, Bridger’s talk page was in response to a sentiment he wrote at ANI (I have a right to respond to him), and the two-week sitewide one was because they don’t think I’m competent enough to make well-written verifiably sourced edits. Another user started an “edit war” by misusing their automatic reversal tool, overstepping their boundary as an administrator, removing new edits that had and have nothing to do with my block or conduct.

I’d really rather do the right thing and just make these corrective edits today, but, as you said the administrators locked me up.

I don’t care what other users or administrators think of me, rather, I am allowed to make edits that are accurate, truthful, and verifiably sourced. It makes no difference who makes these edits, actually, so if and when a correction needs to be made I will not be persecuted for it. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JH. I am really to give you space and not stir the pot, so just making this one edit and will not respond further for the time being, but just wanted to make you aware that Naraht cannot make those edits for you, because it might be considered WP:PROXYING and conceivably could get them blocked as well. Best strategy is to wait it out, and enjoy the good weather. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that response, for one of those irresponsible edits he’d actually just be reverting one he made. That’s not PROXYING, just a correction. Jonathanhusky (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it made? Because, I wanted to keep track if changes from Storrs to Storrs-Mansfield were made during the time that you were banned were made by IP addresses. There were a couple of IP addresses involved in some of the early edits. As to edits that I have made, I'm not sure if I have made edits in a street address, if I have, then let me know and I'll consider it. I don't consider undoing my own edits after consideration being PROXYING, though I'd ask Mathglot's opinion as a fellow experienced editor. As for the change at The Daily Campus from "Storrs-Mansfield" to "Storrs, Mansfield", that wasn't my edit.

And, you should care. It is my experience from dealing with dozens of other people would wanted to Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, that continuing to do this after having things explained to them is that they were rapidly completely banned. A two week ban is what you got for a first offense (in terms of it going to {[WP:ANI]]. If after you have the opportunity to return, you continue to do those things which got you banned, my honest guess (as a non-administrator) is that a likely option is a permanent ban. And the changes that you've made represent so much of a fingerprint that it would cause even IP addresses (and ranges) can have their access limited. And frankly, there isn't anywhere that makes sense for you to appeal from the administrator's notice board, the description is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." and you were one. Whether you choose to be one when you come back, we'll see. I don't see much hope, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Sincerely,Naraht (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t disagree in recognizing that may be what happens to “repeat offenders”, but my editing conduct was never expulsive, and the fact is the only reason the ANI thread exists is because I was accused of “editing other editors’ comments” which I never did and wouldn’t do.

You’ve linked to the policy RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which I don’t disagree with - but I won’t be made a fool by any other user (administrators included) who says that the edits I’ve made or discussed as suggestions on the talk page weren’t supported by verified reliable sources. Or, if an idea was posited, the types of sources that could be considered reliable were then discussed.

At no point did I make an edit which wasn’t supported in reliable sources, a fact that needs to be respected.

As for IP editing, @UConnIPUser admitted they were responsible for a prior round of editing (before I arrived), that was subsequently blamed on me. Is it fair that I’ve been prevented from setting the record straight at the correct venues? No, it isn’t. @Liz has made countless edits since I’ve alerted them to this fact but hasn’t corrected it nor responded.

You said “do those things that got you banned”, but let’s take a look; did I get banned for writing factual reliably-sourced edits, or banned for initiating consensus-building processes? No. So I shouldn’t be getting penalized for doing so.

I’m not a vandal or miskreant like you all are saying I am. Or at least those at ANI are and those who banned me just to shut me up from setting the record straight. If only folks here dealt with actual vandalism and rule-breakers. Jonathanhusky (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shrug*. See you on the WP:ANI in roughly two weeks. And almost certainly not after that.Naraht (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no need for a return to ANI. If Jonathanhusky returns to disruptive editing when the current block expires, the next block will be swift and probably indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, reliably sourced edits aren’t disruptive. So, if you or any other editor bans me for well-written and informative encyclopedic editing, that’s libelous and a personal attack. Jonathanhusky (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that's libelous I would suggest using different wording there, as that could be considered a legal threat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libel means false statements that are published to harm someone’s reputation. If we actually read the policy WP:LEGAL which you linked, it says a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat and then links to a more relevant policy for page editing, WP:LIBEL.

What I meant was, if I am blocked for making constructive edits in concert with statements that those edits (or any edit I make) is disruptive on its face, mostly just because I was the one who made it, then yes - that would not be fair and could be considered libelous, I have a right to point that out if it happens (even for previously-made statements) - but does not mean I made or suggested a “legal threat”.

If I or any other make an edit that’s supported by reliable sources and properly cited in the edit, there’s no grounds for reversal of that edit nor blocking. It doesn’t matter who makes the edit. Jonathanhusky (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Libel means false statements that are published to harm someone’s reputation – Perhaps, but as the Illinois Supreme Court pointed out to Nathan Leopold, at this point you don't have much reputation left to harm (here on Wikipedia, anyway). And what little you have left you seem determined to throw away all by yourself. EEng 05:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What, by making well-written and sourced edits, or by defending myself against the incorrect comments you and others have made about me? Next time you want to lock the door and gossip about me behind my back, reconsider that.

And now you’ve compared me to a murderer. That’s a personal attack big time, bucko. I really don’t care for those who make them. Jonathanhusky (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless. EEng 05:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what type of constructive does that comment fall into? If you consider yourself a good editor in standing, go back and replace the address back to Storrs-Mansfield, aka the original purpose of this topic on my page for @Liz.

If you don’t do that, you can’t honestly call yourself someone who knowingly does the right thing. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger, Hello, this is a brief response to your comment made at WP:ANI: Please describe the "implicit" language you accuse me of using:

...with it being implicitly stated that he'll resume the exact same behavior that got him blocked when the block expired...

Because I never said anything of the sort, so please clarify this statement for me.

Furthermore, you accuse me of the constant wikilawering, refusal to listen, and refusal to accept that he could have in any way be wrong, combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works... which is once again not true.

First, you insinuated that a comment I made to @Liz on this talk page [didn't] look promising [for me]. Can you explain what the hell that means? You and the gang of administrators have blocked me from editing, which prevents me from taking the correct action in the case with User:Liz - reverting her edit, leaving a detailed edit summary, and perhaps in that case adding in a reference citation to support the proper address form.

What is wrong with that? There's enough editors who are snooping here now, so anyone, feel free to explain how editing the address to its proper form - that being Storrs-Mansfield, since that is the correct name for postal addresses - in the process that I just described disruptive?

Secondly, you say I fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. What? All I have done, throughout everything, has been trying to uphold WP:VERIFIABILITY and try to work together to make a grey area on this site not-so-grey anymore. The fact is, an unincorporated community like the one we were discussing doesn't fit into Wikipedia's "boxes" available at-hand.

Every discussion point I have brought up has been talked about with references and citations in the midst - part of the questions being asked were which sources could be considered reliable, but at no time did I have an unsourced point nor an unsourced edit.

I was the first to be willing to hear out others in the discussion as to opposing points. The village's official name, Storrs-Mansfield, wasn't and isn't up for a debate here - only the Town of Mansfield can change that. Wikipedia editors don't and can't determine that nor do we have the right to say it isn't official or is less official than it is. If you feel differently, maybe edit the article South Korea to remove the official name, and then get back to us.

What we were discussing was how to label the common name alongside the official one - and then later, the article merge proposal which in itself is a separate topic.

Back at the discussion, you'll see I took feedback on my initial suggested text, rewrote and suggested new versions, tried to comment on what other, similar topics and articles may act as a guide to how to answer these questions. Don't you dare say I refused to listen or refused to accept that I [could have been] wrong.

And now you think I should be outright banned forever via "an indef". Gee. What thanks I get for trying to actually improve an article with well-written edits, reliable sources, and starting discussions to try and develop a solution. Jonathanhusky (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community is sick and tired of having its time taken up with this unimportant point about the name of this little corner of the earth. You may have to accept, for the time being, that it's going to be "wrong" (from your point of view, anyway). If you're indeed here to build an encyclopedia -- not just right this great wrong -- you'll turn your back on this and go edit other articles. Maybe in a year or two, when you have more experience in the subtlties of how things are done around here, you might gingerly reopen the question. But if you keep up this baying at the moon you're going to find your ability to edit even this page turned off. EEng 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to tell you all that this was not about the town name?

For the love of Pete, I was accepting and open to keeping “Storrs” in as long as we made it clear it was informal. Your position supports that you’d like the article on South Korea to never include that country’s official name. So go on, make that change. It’s not destructive if that’s your position, right?

Oh wait. See how messed up that would be?

Once again, any reference to a postal address or train station should rightfully keep the elongated official form. You nor any other editor have provided any reason (let alone a good one) as to why that shouldn’t be the case, and continue to personally attack me.

from your point of view, anyway

Another personal attack, I see. And no, I am allowed to say that because Phil Bridger said it straight to me and no one batted an eye or responded to scold or ban him. So you can’t punish me for doing it. Jonathanhusky (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point there was that Phil Bridger's use of the term to you was considered reasonable given your appalling behaviour. For you to use that term while blocked, however, would appear rather unwise. Axad12 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

your appalling behaviour

Oh, you mean replying to Bridger’s incorrect comment at ANI, but because you all had blocked me from that venue - I had to respond at his talk page?

And, once again, if he felt he didn’t want that on his talk page specifically, even though he made an incorrect statement and needs to take responsibility for that, and I have the right to respond to that - to transplant the conversation to ANI because I couldn’t respond there in the first place.

And, if we consider Bridger’s conduct as gospel, then I decree that the users I’ve pointed out in my talk page need to correct their edits as requested. Jonathanhusky (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice, which you can take or reject as you please...

If you are blocked from participating in a given conversation, turning up at another user's talk page and demanding that they continue the argument is not a good idea.

Similarly, in your current situation it isn't a good idea to be attempting to summon other users here to argue with you.

This whole thing is about community behavioural norms. You may think that you were acting within those norms, but you weren't. That's why you got blocked.

Given your inexperience here, maybe just accept that other people's opinions about community norms are more likely to be valid than your own. Similarly, if everyone else agrees then that is a WP:CONSENSUS.

On Wikipedia, when you're on the wrong side of a consensus you just have to accept it, dust yourself down, and move on. Digging in your heels and creating an enormous scene simply doesn't work.

We are all here to build an encyclopaedia. If there is disagreement then we discuss, we form a consensus, we implement the consensus decision and we move on to other issues. That process is not going to be disrupted by the person on the wrong side of the consensus trying to continue the argument.

That is how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, ship out. Axad12 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonathanhusky,

When this 2 week block is over, the only way I can see you avoiding being indefinitely blocked from this project is if you are partially blocked from editing the Storrs, Connecticut article and Talk:Storrs, Connecticut page and be topic banned from the subject of discussing Storrs, Connecticut anywhere on the project. Can you accept that as a voluntary editing restriction and occupy yourself improving other articles that have nothing to do with this town? I think some of your edits were very good but you got yourself into trouble by your inability to accept consensus on the name of this town. If you could let this subject drop and find other articles to improve, you might avoid being blocked from this project. But it's up to you. I'm just making this proposal, we'll see if you and other administrators agree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, this comment highlights an issue we find ourselves with.

You basically just said that I’d be indefinitely blocked, no matter what, for editing articles or information related to Storrs-Mansfield. That’s not content-neutral - if I make a well-written edit that’s properly sourced, should I always be fearing that any move I make will see me blocked forever? We’ve already seen examples of editors/administrators reverting my edits without any regard to their content, expansion and improvement, or information that has nothing to do with (perhaps) the reason they reverted it.

That’s part of why I called out R0paire-wiki here, and only begrudgingly did he do what he should have in the first place, only after a so-called “edit war” began - revert just the small isolated text he had a problem with. That’s proof that I didn’t cause any edit war.

...your inability to accept consensus on the name of this town.

This is the second issue: the community’s name isn’t determined by consensus. These are the facts:

1. The town is named Mansfield.

2. There are two unincorporated villages (“hamlet”, “burb”, etc.) within the Town of Mansfield, and the town uses two official names: Storrs-Mansfield and Mansfield Center.

2a. Each village has its own postal area, 06268-9 and 06250, respectively.

3. There are, furthermore, numerous neighborhoods (which are also unincorporated) which existed historically and don’t have defined boundaries.

These three claims were thoroughly sourced and corroborated through reliable sources. They can’t be overridden by consensus as your comment would seem to imply.

Instead, at Wikipedia, we can choose to use a common name - that’s always been fine and I’ve never had a problem with it. “Storrs” is and perhaps always will be a common name for Storrs-Mansfield. But if you use a common name, you have to recognize the official name at least once, labeling them properly: WP:BETTER/GRAF1 provides United Kingdom as an example, with "commonly known as" - ALTNAME uses Mumbai, with "also known as" there and "formerly known as" in the actual article. Hollywood, Los Angeles famously has "sometimes informally called" in its first sentence.

So you’ll see that my suggestions and edits were emulations of accepted Wikipedia language, followed all relevant policies for geographical names, and even still had “Storrs” labeled as an informal form.

If you feel that assessment is incorrect, then cordially explain - but it’s very clear that editors can’t just eradicate the official name of a place. I asked the others and I’ll do so again, if you feel that they can, go remove the official name from South Korea.

If you call me out for “repeating myself” then assess how much you understood the points I made in the original discussion. I’m trying to clarify it for you and explain how, no, my edits and suggestions did indeed align with Wikipedia policies.

That also led me to my reply comment here, which I recognize should have been either on your talk page or edit simply reverted - but remember you all forced me into a block. You can’t edit postal addresses to be incorrect like that.

This comment is neither an admission nor a rejection of your proposed plea deal. Because we all know that’s what it is: Like I led with, you can’t ban me from making quality edits simply because of their topic. If you try, then well, that’s another ball game. Jonathanhusky (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]