|
Sign your comments on Talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Indent your comments properly. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jacobin (magazine) 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JesseRafe. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Talk:Jacobin (magazine) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. You are now spamming the talk page with these external links. Please stop this behavior and read the links on your talk page about how to effectively and constructively edit Wikipedia and the way to comport yourself on a talk page.
JesseRafe (
talk)
19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you revert the post you just made, and read WP:RFC to learn how to do one properly. You don't just ask a bunch of questions. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comments at
Talk:Jacobin (magazine) are more and more coming off as trolling. For example
this: "If it is not your responsibility to make copy edits, then why bother doing so on other pages? You copy edited the Long Bay College article 30min ago. Why do that if it's not your responsibility?"
What kind of question is that, and how is it your business if the user you're speaking to copyedited something else recently? That does not mean you get to demand they copyedit your additions (and, by implication, to demand that you get to edit carelessly and without proofreading). It's completely that user's own choice if they copyedit one article and not another. If you continue on this path of trolling and unfunny "jokes", you may be blocked from
Jacobin (magazine) and its talkpage.
Bishonen |
tålk
15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at
Jacobin (magazine), you may be
blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please review the multiple links that you've been directed to on multiple occasions about how to write on this encyclopedia. You're certainly proficient at writing on talk pages, perhaps read one or two?
JesseRafe (
talk)
16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
We ask editors to be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith, and you've done neither. Telling an editor "Don't dare", and "It's funny how you always show up behind other editors to shout "hear, hear!".' are examples of posts that could get you blocked, either from the whole site or the Jacobin article, or even topic banned from American politics.
That said, the solution is simple. Be polite, assume other editors are doing their best. As for the SPI, I note how few edits you have so far, not that different from the others. You're new, I hope, and clearly have a lot to learn as do all new editors. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That was written by another Administrator, not me. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
I dream of horses
(talk page)
(Contribs) Remember to
notify me after replying off my talk page.
03:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
|
@ I dream of horses: Hey, I have added some citations and references to the journal by third party sources. I am unsure of where I could find other sources because this is a very obscure, and young academic journal. What else might I be able to do if the amount of sources out there are paltry? Also does the ISSN factor in, considering that it's an academic journal? Thanks BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 04:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in this conversation: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jacobin. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there something about Wikipedia:Civility that you do not understand? You've been given a very long leash and warned by multiple admins, but these passive aggressive snide comments need to stop now. Also, stop pinging me every day, this isn't a chat board and I don't have to look at every conversation you're involved in. But you do need to adjust your behavior in the community. JesseRafe ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
To explain my last edits, I do think it's a problem that on three pieces you essentially cut and pasted the same language and line about the artistic influence of three different publications, not really explaining the relationship between the two or crediting a source that goes into detail about artistic influence on modern magazines like The New Yorker. Dsakey1978 ( talk) 05:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't
bludgeon
Talk:Jacobin (magazine), BuilderJustLikeBob, and listen better to experienced editors. Your claim that an utterly unencyclopedic addition such as "pathbreaking scholars" is "fair" because "these scholars have either birthed entire fields, or made significant contributions to them"
[1] is quite alarming; it shows a lack of understanding of encyclopedic style and use of sources, I'm afraid. We don't draw our own praiseful conclusions from what people have done; that's
original research, which is forbidden. Also please don't open interminable RfCs to push your own version. You are expecting too much time and patience from other people. When one person,
User:JzG, replied to your RfC of 18 June (it seems everybody else is exhausted, which I can understand), you showered him with new questions instead of learning from his response. Worse, I see you actually threatening to open another RfC above: "Quit playing with me man. Like I said, I will never go away. Revert your edits. If you don't I'm just gonna be forced to launch an Rfc, yet again."
That sounds very much like you realize opening RfC's the way you're doing it is an aggressive move. Don't open another one, or I will block you for trolling and timewasting. Let people answer the RfC that's up now without pestering them; try to figure out what they're talking about instead. It can't be that hard, compare
[2]. And never ask personal questions like <redacted> What business is it of yours? It's the kind of thing you may just possibly ask a good friend you're on confidential terms with; not an editor you have just, in the same post, been assuming bad faith of. This is my second and final warning.
Bishonen |
tålk
06:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
<Outing attempts removed> BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Catalyst (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 14:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Sign your comments on Talk pages by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your comment. Indent your comments properly. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Jacobin (magazine) 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
JesseRafe. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to
Talk:Jacobin (magazine) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. You are now spamming the talk page with these external links. Please stop this behavior and read the links on your talk page about how to effectively and constructively edit Wikipedia and the way to comport yourself on a talk page.
JesseRafe (
talk)
19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you revert the post you just made, and read WP:RFC to learn how to do one properly. You don't just ask a bunch of questions. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Your comments at
Talk:Jacobin (magazine) are more and more coming off as trolling. For example
this: "If it is not your responsibility to make copy edits, then why bother doing so on other pages? You copy edited the Long Bay College article 30min ago. Why do that if it's not your responsibility?"
What kind of question is that, and how is it your business if the user you're speaking to copyedited something else recently? That does not mean you get to demand they copyedit your additions (and, by implication, to demand that you get to edit carelessly and without proofreading). It's completely that user's own choice if they copyedit one article and not another. If you continue on this path of trolling and unfunny "jokes", you may be blocked from
Jacobin (magazine) and its talkpage.
Bishonen |
tålk
15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC).
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at
Jacobin (magazine), you may be
blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia
Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please review the multiple links that you've been directed to on multiple occasions about how to write on this encyclopedia. You're certainly proficient at writing on talk pages, perhaps read one or two?
JesseRafe (
talk)
16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
We ask editors to be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith, and you've done neither. Telling an editor "Don't dare", and "It's funny how you always show up behind other editors to shout "hear, hear!".' are examples of posts that could get you blocked, either from the whole site or the Jacobin article, or even topic banned from American politics.
That said, the solution is simple. Be polite, assume other editors are doing their best. As for the SPI, I note how few edits you have so far, not that different from the others. You're new, I hope, and clearly have a lot to learn as do all new editors. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
That was written by another Administrator, not me. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
I dream of horses
(talk page)
(Contribs) Remember to
notify me after replying off my talk page.
03:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
|
@ I dream of horses: Hey, I have added some citations and references to the journal by third party sources. I am unsure of where I could find other sources because this is a very obscure, and young academic journal. What else might I be able to do if the amount of sources out there are paltry? Also does the ISSN factor in, considering that it's an academic journal? Thanks BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 04:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you might be interested in this conversation: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jacobin. Schazjmd (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there something about Wikipedia:Civility that you do not understand? You've been given a very long leash and warned by multiple admins, but these passive aggressive snide comments need to stop now. Also, stop pinging me every day, this isn't a chat board and I don't have to look at every conversation you're involved in. But you do need to adjust your behavior in the community. JesseRafe ( talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
To explain my last edits, I do think it's a problem that on three pieces you essentially cut and pasted the same language and line about the artistic influence of three different publications, not really explaining the relationship between the two or crediting a source that goes into detail about artistic influence on modern magazines like The New Yorker. Dsakey1978 ( talk) 05:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't
bludgeon
Talk:Jacobin (magazine), BuilderJustLikeBob, and listen better to experienced editors. Your claim that an utterly unencyclopedic addition such as "pathbreaking scholars" is "fair" because "these scholars have either birthed entire fields, or made significant contributions to them"
[1] is quite alarming; it shows a lack of understanding of encyclopedic style and use of sources, I'm afraid. We don't draw our own praiseful conclusions from what people have done; that's
original research, which is forbidden. Also please don't open interminable RfCs to push your own version. You are expecting too much time and patience from other people. When one person,
User:JzG, replied to your RfC of 18 June (it seems everybody else is exhausted, which I can understand), you showered him with new questions instead of learning from his response. Worse, I see you actually threatening to open another RfC above: "Quit playing with me man. Like I said, I will never go away. Revert your edits. If you don't I'm just gonna be forced to launch an Rfc, yet again."
That sounds very much like you realize opening RfC's the way you're doing it is an aggressive move. Don't open another one, or I will block you for trolling and timewasting. Let people answer the RfC that's up now without pestering them; try to figure out what they're talking about instead. It can't be that hard, compare
[2]. And never ask personal questions like <redacted> What business is it of yours? It's the kind of thing you may just possibly ask a good friend you're on confidential terms with; not an editor you have just, in the same post, been assuming bad faith of. This is my second and final warning.
Bishonen |
tålk
06:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC).
<Outing attempts removed> BuilderJustLikeBob ( talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, BuilderJustLikeBob. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:Catalyst (journal), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for
article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 14:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)