User talk:JrFedit

June 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sound art, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sound art, you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci (✉)

13:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC) you'll have to forgive me but I will try here to explain; there has been a campaign to remove edits that correct sexist distortions of art history on wiki for some years & this situation with a simple emtry of Atsuko Tanaka's 'work bell' piece from 1955 is just one example. I assume your message also refers to the ongoing (since january) situation on the page for 'I Am Sitting in a Room'. If you look at all of these issues from a different and historically correct view the edits that actively omitted both women were in fact disruptive to both art history and to the specific works under discussion. On IaSiaR I and others have provided references, including from Alvin Lucier himself and others and still they are removed. In terms of Sound Art as an aspect of Japanese Art Movements there is no difference in inserting this than there is in most of the other references by country that often not backed up by any references. I'd conclude by saying that if I appear frustrated (especially on the Lucier situation) it is because of the considerable opposition that the edits have faced. It is exhausting constantly having to battle people who refer to Mary Lucier as 'merely Alvin's wife' etc. As others I started editing politely but facts keep being removed.

August 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Fountain (Duchamp) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, It could be argued that you also have been involved in an editwar. Some editors disagree, some don't. So we have to look to the evidence and it all now points firmly to the work not being created by Duchamp but by F-L. This is not a matter of me editing to what 'I think it should be' but based on the facts around the piece, none of which have ever supported that Duchamp created it. That ia a key issue here; that the view that he did was based on nothing at all other than a patriarchal culture and Duchamp's ability to remove F-L from the work's history. User:JrFedit

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Fountain (Duchamp), you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci (✉) 11:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to read the substantive research that has taken place in recent decades and that identifies F-L as the artist. If you check the discussion on the talk page for the article you will see that this problem has been raised before, but that there is a sustained and problematic refusal to accept said research even when it is referenced. I have now inserted that article into the page as it collates the various strands of research that has led to Fountain now being recognised in the art world as by F-L User: JrFedit

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Fountain (Duchamp). freshacconci (✉) 13:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know why you refuse to accept the research that has now been cited on the page and the widely held opinion in the arts that the work was by F-L. Aggressively removing edits & threatening bans like this is problematic & it disrupts wiki by appearing to take the view that 'history' is set in stone. I would urge you to review the research cited (9). User: JrFedit

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JrFedit reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: ). Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not looking very hard![edit]

Talk:Fountain_(Duchamp)#RFC Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you posted this as I have read all of the notes on the subject on wiki. A lot of this depends on which angle your coming from & if you read said notes from a position that isn't complicit in a patriarchal reading of art history (that isn't an insult to anyone in particular but rather a comment that art history has been a patriarchal system until a more recently) & that has knowledge of all of the research on F-L that really only began in the 70's, there are certain assumptions in it that are not supported. I repeat there is no evidence that supports that Duchamp created this work except for one story he told 40 years later and that has been very clearly shown to be false (perhaps he intended to continue some of the ambiguity around the work, perhaps to claim it). Prior to that he never claimed to have created the original work and indeed, as citation 9 shows, there are a number of logistical and historical reasons why he couldn't have. Throughout the earlier discussion it is obvious that most of the contributors start from a position that there is evidence that he created it & there is not a single book or paper on the subject that offers any firm proof of that, even in the ones that claim he might have or did. On the other hand there is a substantial amount of evidence, inc. photographs, documents, letters etc. that support the claim that F-L created the original work.

Having said all of that I think I will step back from this now as it is exhausting to face such obvious refusal to discuss the research and to acknowledge that the starting point has been & still is the view that he created it. This has happened repeatedly on other posts and often involving the same editors, and its always around the subject of female artists & a refusal to allow them the recognition they deserve in various works or contexts. That is problematic and does nothing to encourage more people to be involved, especially when firm citations of extensive and widely accepted research are removed. User: JrFedit

August 2020[edit]

Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. freshacconci (✉) 15:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea why you think that but I can assure you I am not. I have one wiki account, one email address, one website, one identity. I am aware of some other editors on wiki that have had problems, including activist groups but I am not connected to them in anyway. I see this as a totally unsubstantiated attack and clearly part of your campaign to get me banned User: JrFedit

First, you need to assume good faith and not throw accusations around: "this as a totally unsubstantiated attack and clearly part of your campaign to get me banned". I am not trying to get you banned. A block for edit warring is rarely indefinite. I'm trying to get you to stop being disruptive. There is also no "campaign" against you. Frankly, you're not worth the effort and it is rather narcissistic to assume a group of complete strangers are out to get you. We want you to stop being disruptive. As for sockpuppetry, an editor with only one previous edit suddenly appears to revert to your version after you've been repeatedly warned against edit warring. That is suspicious but I wasn't accusing you of anything: I was pointing out that sockpuppeting (and meatpuppeting) is not permitted. If I was accusing you, I would say so. There is a previous consensus for the stable version of the article. Rather than trying to establish a new consensus you have repeatedly reverted to your version, which is not only disruptive and against guidelines, but it's quite arrogant to insist that your view is the only acceptable one, everyone else be damned. freshacconci (✉) 16:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did you assume good faith when I edited & inserted a link to extensive research on this artwork, or indeed when you I have done so on other pages where you have removed edits & citations I have included? It is not disruptive to cite new research (even though the point I keep trying to make but you never address is that even in all of the other refs on the page there isn't any proof offered that Duchamp created the work) but removing such edits, refusing to discuss the actual research on the talk page is something I see as disruptive. No campaign yet you go on to say I am 'not worth the effort'. I think that shows that you clearly have an issue with me. I also did not edit in the manner you say here. I did attempt to discuss the research on the talk page & you failed to do so. I still do not know if you have even bothered to read it, especially as you have repeatedly edited it out of the page, therefore denying anyone else the ability to read it. My initial edit wasn't about my version, it was to correct an article that has always been problematic & where there is now (& has been for decades) a lot of research proving that Duchamp did not create the original work. If I had wanted to dismiss 'everyone else' I would have edited the other sections of the page that discuss various theories or that continue to assert that he created said work. I don't know who you are so I have no way of knowing whether you have any in-depth knowledge of the subject but to refer to me as 'not worth the effort' shows that you have contempt for those that have researched these areas of the arts for decades. User: JrFedit

Edit warring at Fountain (Duchamp)[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I did try discussions on the talk page for the article however the editors who removed properly cited edits refused to discuss the matter. This won't assist in getting me unblocked but there is a significant issue on wiki of pages being controlled by men who refuse to allow edits that acknowledge female artists, even when ref's are cited. Throughout this particular issue on the page for Fountain I have been insulted, accused of having multiple accounts, my edits misrepresented and my attempts to discuss the research ignored JrFedit (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to indicate that you failed to establish consensus on the talk page. In that case, you shouldn't make your edits. Yamla (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An SPI has also been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/JrFedit, most likely due to the sudden arrival of a supporter of RfFedit, User:Musartmaknew, in the middle of an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing out that among eight editors who reacted against JrFedit's edits on Fountain (myself, Coldcreation, Freshacconci, Modernist, Johnbod, Serial Number 54129, MelanieN, and Hesperian Nguyen), I am the only one who links my Wikipedia account to a male real-world identity, MelanieN publicly identifies as female, Johnbod has a usually-male name but otherwise does not specify, and the other five provide no clear statement of gender. Per WP:OUTING no additional investigation into real-world identities is permitted. So JrFedit's assumption that all of the people they are arguing against are male appears to be both false (in at least one case) and sexist. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]