JasonAJensenUSA

I guess you can talk about me here.. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at E. Fuller Torrey, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

To emphasize the above point, the last user who added the unreferenced claims about Dr. Torrey to his biography was blocked for 31 hours for this misconduct. If you continue with these sorts of WP:BLP violations, or misrepresentation of sources or original research, your account will also be blocked, perhaps indefinitely. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Pure brute force. No discussion. No civility. You edit a page - you better watch out as you will be censured. I guess this is my "welcome" to Wikipedia. I feel like I just walked into a biker bar wearing chachi's. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

From the perspective of most Wikipedia editors, the situation is, to use your analogy, more like you walking into a wedding dressed in a leather jacket and spitting on the floor. Our response is quite predictable. Wikipedia biographies "go live" immediately; and blatantly defamatory material requires removal with a level of celerity that often cannot be achieved without force and the omission of certain social pleasantries. Making biographies into tabloid scandal sheets does indeed result in an "unwelcome" response. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

First, it wasn't "blatantly defamatory" if you put any reasoning into what the guy advocates. He has no doubtedly advocated for the use of force to control people with symptoms of what he considers to be a "mental illness". This means that he has most likely advocated for the use of straight jackets on people. And again, I didn't write it. I did modify it to make it better. Tried to engage another editor. Etc. But again, since you made no notice of you complain my restoration of it didn't violate WP:BLP. Maybe you need to review your policies on how you revert material as 90% of what you revert has no mention of reasoning in the comment section. I guess it is easy for you to justify quantity of quality but then it leads into mistakes and disputes. Point is, you're not civil, you're not reasonable, you're not even justified. Oh and who is "Our" in the "Our response is predictable" if you don't think you represent "Wikipedia"? These are YOUR ACTIONS. There is no Our. Unless you are saying you share your account in which I am sure I don't have to tell you that violates policy. Plus, which one of these "most Wikipedia editors" delegated you the ability to explain their "perspective"? Again, your position does not align with stated Wikipedia policies. In fact, I have read over and over that civility and politeness are utmost virtues. Maybe you need to reflect a bit. Even redemption is a virtue to those who do willingly, openly, and purposefully violate policy repeatedly.

05:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:JasonAJensenUSA

User:JasonAJensenUSA, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JasonAJensenUSA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JasonAJensenUSA during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There also seems to be a grave dissonance between editing Wikipedia, and your expressed antipathy for this site and its editors. You can either improve your editing to conform with policy, leave Wikipedia, or be banned. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess you could say that we Wikipedians are evil censors who ban everyone who disagrees with them, of course :) However, you need to understand that the virtue of honesty requires Wikipedia to be faithful to its own professed values of WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and to use blocking and banning where no other means of controlling policy violations prove effective. Every block or ban is in some sense a concession of inability to reason with the offending editor; yet, humility requires us to admit the situation when it occurs. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You can claim whatever you want, now. I got that warning from you under absolute precarious conditions. You do not represent Wikipedia but instead represent a small amount of editors who want to control the flow of information. That is the antithesis of Wikipedia's stated goals. I attempted to engage you and you were obtuse with the discussion saying I could file a complaint but then you would have me banned. I am not saying every Wikipedian is bad, just some of them. That is exactly what my user page says - it doesn't attack you in anyway. Its is just a copy of our exchange that you cannot delete without the page deletion request you have made. And what of the policies,every bit as important as the ones you mentioned, that say be kind and welcoming to new users? What about the parts that say new users are bound to make mistakes? I see nothing in the policies that advocate banning but as a last resort. I see nothing that advocates your attitude. For some reason you think to be apart of the community is to agree it isn't. The NPOV is a completely bastardized rule that just says excuse to censor. Everything is at least partly POV but you don't see anything about npov on popular POV. And what is popular? Well you decide that yourself too. Like the last editor who removed my edits for not having "consensus" - well he was so sure he was right until I found the rule page that says that isn't a valid reason to revert. His real reason? Just like you he didn't like what I had to say - so he ruined the work I did without any other justification. That's what this is really about. I pointed out the huge problems with that page and you did nothing. His educational background and all his "awards" went without any challenge because the reviewing editor at that time agreed so the fact it violates WP:BLP doesn't matter. In fact, it is still there. Because your intent isn't to enforce Wikipedia rules but your own.

Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am right here too. See Wikipedia:Ignoring_all_rules_–_a_beginner's_guide or Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules or Wikipedia:Suggestions_on_how_to_ignore_all_rules where to writ "Regular users, and especially new users, are encouraged to just be bold, ignore all rules, and work on writing an encyclopedia." Yes, as it would seem this is not a clear cut case as you would like to portray it to be. I took the other editor's work see http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=E._Fuller_Torrey&diff=558909545&oldid=558854153 and modified it to http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=E._Fuller_Torrey&diff=558915090&oldid=558909545 . And I wasn't done. I had seriously considered removing the next two sentences but unlike reverting and banning users discourages new users I was trying to engage him/her. I had no idea you had already blocked them. This page needs a massive amount of work and it is apparent that no current user is willing to take ownership of it then new users must. As WP:BLP states WP:libel is no special offense as you claim. It is the un-cited nature (and maybe WP:NPOV) which is the real problem. And as I have stated - you don't really seem to have a problem with that. You removed sections in Treatment Advocacy Center for being un-cited but they were also changed by me to be more WP:NPOV. So you just removed them. You don't think I wanted to do that? But that takes someone else's work and throws it away. I wanted to make it better.

Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not a single-handed representative of Wikipedia. No individual editor is. Wikipedia has over 4 million articles, which no single user could undertake to improve. In fact, editorial resources are spread sufficiently thin that we do not consider an editor who improves an article to thereby become responsible for each and every problem with it. WP:LIBEL is a sufficiently weighty concern that I can remove content which blatantly violates it, without consequently taking upon myself all other contraventions of policy that the article may or may not contain. As for your contention that WP:IAR trumps WP:LIBEL, that WP:LIBEL isn't the most severe WP:BLP problem, I have really no response other than that, as you will no doubt discover, few other editors share your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy. It is indeed WP:CONSENSUS that makes the bare words of the policy into an incarnate meaning. And if you choose to oppose this, I can't personally block or ban you, as I am not a administrator. You will be blocked or banned for violating the incarnate meaning of the policy, of course, but this shall be at the discretion of an administrator, or a community ban discussion at WP:AN/I. You can choose to regard Wikipedia sysops as tyrants, and the regular editors as an angry mob with torches and pitchforks; you would not be the first or the last user to come to such a conclusion; but if you believe that the deck is this badly stacked, why are you still playing the game? Perhaps, also, you should be open to the possibility that the deck is not stacked against you; that, from the perspective of NPOV, as interpreted by the community, you are trying to stack the deck against Dr. Torrey and anyone or anything else of which you disapprove. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No body cares that you saw fit to remove the content. I am not even sure I disagree with removing it. It is the nature of the warning which disturbs me. Not only the fact that you used it but most importantly how quick you are to use it. It is a matter of civility and you show little to none of it. Like the comment "If you really think my editing is such a problem, go ahead and post a complaint on WP:AN/I about it. It's only fair to warn you, though, that you will likely be banned, something that I wouldn't mind in the least. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)"

So you can claim "consensus" or that you are in the majority or whatever you want. But the simple undeniable fact is that you deal with malfeasance too often and it has made you coarse in dealing with other people. You know human beings. People with thoughts, feelings, and personalities. Maybe it is a big service that you run around Wikipedia taking off thousands of comments about "boobs" or whatnot on who knows what page. It obviously needs to be done. But this is not an example of doing that. Moreover, how many editors have you put off to editing? Maybe pages are not vandalized but they remain in horrible condition. And for what? What did I do to you to justify such disregard? Where does your contempt for me arise? You seem to ignore the fact that you didn't make not that you remove the page for WP:BLP all it says is:

(cur | prev) 03:15, 8 June 2013‎ DavidLeighEllis (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,856 bytes) (-522)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 24.107.181.239 (talk) to last version by DavidLeighEllis) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 03:14, 8 June 2013‎ 24.107.181.239 (talk)‎ . . (35,378 bytes) (+522)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 03:12, 8 June 2013‎ DavidLeighEllis (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (34,856 bytes) (-531)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 24.107.181.239 (talk) to last version by Addbot) (undo | thank)

But you just trek on. To me it doesn't seem that you care that you trample all over people. There still is no apparent reason either. Again - I DID NOT WRITE WHAT YOU TOOK ISSUE WITH. My sin, if any, was talking a different approach. To extend civility to others when it is in short supply. I tried to make it better. Found a source that maybe the person was talking about. Tried to edit it to be fair. Sure I admit you argument that it wasn't edited enough is valid. I don't agree you are right that saying "Dr. BlahBlah said that most doctors falsify information to do what is needed" or whatnot is somehow WP:POV. It is a biography of a man an a paraphrase of his position. That is completely valid. Again, you put all this time in the matter but the original document still has uncited sources.

Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 05:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Referenced book

Hi. I might be able to help solve one mystery. The book you referenced here, is not actually a book "by" the Wikimedia Foundation. "eM Publications" is a republisher company, that steals material and "publishes" it in print-on-demand form hoping to make money. See the 4th entry at Wikipedia:Republishers for their listing.

The material in that "book", is just copy&paste content from the Wikipedia collection of articles, Book:Bipolar Disorder. And we can't cite our own articles as sources (though we can obviously share any WP:Reliable sources from within other articles).

Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(And yes, we do take WP:BLP very seriously, because otherwise lawyers or avoidable-harm-to-humans makes everything unpleasant. Hence the sternness of the warning messages associated with BLP, particularly when a topic has had problems in the past. The only alternative is WP:Page protection, which is our last resort.) –Quiddity (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I knew that. But I could not find the page number as it is a quote from his own book. They don't take BLP serious until it's a good excuse to pounce. A great many things on that page violate BLP. Things like his uncited education, original sources (anything at www.advocacytreatmentcenter.org is original work as he self proclaims to operate it), the sections giving him notoriety by talking about awards and media praises all without sources.

And like I said before, this roboreverter reverted edits but left no apparent reason as to why. Had he said it was a BLP violation I would not have reverted it and attempted to edit it. Its pretty obvious that his goal is to rack up as much notoriety, by way of an edit count, as possible. But this practice is so counter productive. I takes almost no effort to revert an edit, especially when you don't even bother to justify it in the comments, but it take a great deal more to actually attempt to make meaningful edits. His bad attitude is further compounded by the fact he does not want to discuss anything he reverts. The whole thing isn't WP:CIVIL and bites people unnecessarily. It's classic insecurity. Then the, short, conversation I did have was smug, condescending, and absolutely hostile (he flat out advocated me being banned for stepping on his shoe - a clear way of trying to portray unwelcomeness). But this bad attitude is for some reason cherished. Not one person has criticized his actions while almost everyone has condoned them by way of justifications. All people do is talk about consensus but if they control who participates by how they receive newcomers then don't you just have a consensus of like individuals from the same school of thought. How can you even pretend that's a consensus. The numbers speak for themselves. With the easy of participation, at least mechanically, and the widespread adoption of Wikipedia there should be literally millions upon millions out of the 7 billion people. But there isn't. One guy told me there were "over 100,000 irregular editors". Like on the 9/11 talk page, people just proclaim that any considering alternative theories is a "crackpot" even though over 15% of the world and roughly 50% of the polled US think they are, at the very least, concealing information. And what about WTC building 7 that completely collapsed from onset to completion in under 12 seconds. It was never hit by a plane and shows little damage just seconds prior. Contrast that to building 3 and 4 that were literally buried by 1 & 2 but still remained largely intact. Ahh but thats all crackpot thinking. But who even cares about 9/11. This sort of thing happens on every page in every realm.

Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

your unusual interpretation of a rule

The thread at WP:VPP does not seem to be headed anywhere and this is more about you anyway so I'm bringing it up here.

From what I can gather here it looks like you are taking the objections expressed to your userpage as representing a blanket prohibition on ever mentioning anyone else's mistakes, problems, misunderstandings, and so forth or linking to them. That is not the case at all, in fact we have places like WP:ANI WP:BLPN, or WP:AIV where any user making a complaint is basically required to provide supporting evidence. The objection to your userpage is based on WP:POLEMIC, which reads in part "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." That policy section is part of our policy on user pages and does not apply elsewhere.

So, it's much more nuanced than you seem to believe. You could have such a page if it were part of an evidence gathering process for a soon-to-be-posted discussion such as an request for comment or an arbitration case. You can't have it if you just want to record what you don't like about other users and keep it on display. There's a philosophical difference between those two purposes and I would hope you could see that.

So, your claim that any diffs that showed this still-unnamed alleged bias would not be permissible is false. I don't know what Lucia Black was getting at when opening the thread as they never explained what bias they were supposedly victimized by but if there is to be a discussion of such an issue we need to know what the issue is actually is first. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

--It is late, this reply, but it is not never. My purpose for posting evidence on a particular person/editor was not to diminish the person's character - but to document exactly what I have stated - that there is a stark political bias on Wikipedia that is to its detriment. It it's triab for "Consensus" it, wikipedia, uses flawed logic of majority rule to a concept that need not be in the majority - such as truth or knowledge. This is literally Argumentum_ad_populum as applied to Wikipedia's complete policy. Then the editors in chief claim that the service isn't a "webhost" or otherwise artificially creates scarcity as to Wikipedia's own capacity as justification for need to limit articles and their Points of View. Compounded by all this is the simple assertion that articles must lack a POV but such a notion is nonsensical as all facts are limited by perspective of the fact finder. At any rate - you won. I no longer use Wikipedia or care what its policies are and support the copying of the Wikipedia Database to other sites where more freedom of thought can be expressed. As I stated, this has had a snowball effect - we now see the same "policies" implemented on all the major sites such as facebook, youtube, and twitter. All I can say is thank god for DECENTRALIZATION technologies such as minds and steemit. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Spoliation of evidence

You are not allowed to blank any page without explanation. You may be blocke dif you continue.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

-- Again, this was a mistake brought by a medical condition. Under the ADA, in the United States, public accommodations are supposed to be made for people with conditions. Please delete this section upon receipt for privacy concerns as no reply is needed. Jason A. Jensen of USA (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)