How do I get independent editors to review this bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:4181:1870:D9E5:AF86:22D2:F8B5 ( talk) 03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
TheQ Editor. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made with
this edit to
Jack Evans (D.C. politician), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
TheQ Editor
(Talk)
19:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Jack Evans (D.C. politician) with
this edit. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.
TheQ Editor
(Talk)
19:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Jack Evans (D.C. politician) with
this edit, you may be
blocked from editing.
TheQ Editor
(Talk)
19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Evansjack1. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Jack Evans (D.C. politician), you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Jack Evans (D.C. politician).
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Evansjack1,
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!
BarsofGold (
talk)
22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|
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:Evansjack1 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: ). Thank you.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The Washington Post said you had a live-in nanny. A Wikipedia editor does not have the right to remove an assertion supported by a valid source based on the editor's own say-so. You really need to pay attention when you are told how matters like these are handled on Wikipedia, and start discussing your concerns here rather than making your own changes to the article. Even politicians (if you really are Jack Evans) aren't exempt from the policies and guidelines of this website. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.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. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If by some chance you aren't the D.C. Council member Jack Evans, you really should read this. You can be blocked for impersonating a real person. You might want to read it either way. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That biography does look unduly negative to me. I've left a note at the discussion board devoted to biography issues here. Hopefully some fresh eyes will help. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Despite the temporary block that has now ended, you continue to ignore all advice to bring your concerns to the Talk page and let disinterested editors sort them out rather than editing the page yourself. Your changes will continue to be reverted as often as necessary, for as long as you disregard the
WP:POINT to which your attention has now already been drawn twice
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
19:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that you should review that material again, as well as the policies on assuming good faith. It is not a good idea to point fingers at particular editors and blame them for "problems" when it all may boil down to differing views of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Reasonable people can disagree. And I reiterate what I said at the Jack Evans page - you really should refrain from editing it. There are at least three editors working to make the article a bit more evenhanded, and it will be better if you let the process play out. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Evansjack1 ( talk) 15:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.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. — MusikAnimal talk 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
you need to delete the constituent services fund reference. Also that I received the third highest rating from gala. Actually you should include that I received the highest in the last 6 election cycles.
Evansjack1, I'll repeat here what I posted on the article's talk page about the constituent fund issue, in case you'd like to respond here. We don't usually report unsubstantiated insinuations of impropriety unless the claims reached a very high level of visibility. Then we report them only so readers who are aware of the innuendos are left in no doubt that there was no formal finding of impropriety or illegality. It's a question of walking the fine line between compounding the harm by repeating the innuendo and setting the record straight. Was this a massive scandal that most DC readers are likely to have heard about? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for you recent comments. I have had the opportunity to read other comment on a site I stumbled on. A discussion among editors. Johns dc. You have been helpful but I disagree with you constituent services analysis. Just because the post did the story doesn't mean it is credible. The reporters Nikita Stuart and Tim whatever are both gone. They acknowledged that they found nothing. There was no investigation by the Ocf. Ask them. It was a routine audit which came out fine. There are so many other things to include if you want to be fair. Secondly, the GLAA sentence should be expande or deleted. I have gotten a perfect 10 for 20 years. Print that. As I previously stated, this has been quite an experience dealing with Wikipedia. Thanks again for your efforts. Question, how do I find that editors page again?
Anthonyhcole. Thanks for your offer. I would recommend just deleting the last sentence and not adding anything. I have been the leading advocate for LGBT rights on the council for 23 years, long before it was popular. I was the first to call for gay marriage in 1998. But people know that. Just deleting the sentence as johnindc advocates would be great. Also, please read the wash post article on the constituent services fund sports tickets. The statement in my bio is just wrong. The amounts mentioned only cover the past 10 years. The posting says 22 years. When you go back 22 years sports tickets are only 13 per cent of the spending. That is why the article got no attention. Whoever posted it selectively took information to embarrass me during the election. Again thanks for you help. I think I finally have mastered this. And johnindc thanks for the link. I can finally find these things. Finally, I can't find the 4 Tilden on my I pad. Where do I look?
John, now that Anthony took out the puff stuff, let's get rid of the constituent services paragraph and be done. This has been an interesting week and I have really learned about Wikipedia.
Evansjack1 (
talk)
00:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC) I can even sign now!!! (Yay!
Anthonyhcole.)
Evansjack1, you can set your preferences (behind a link at the top of the page) so that whenever anyone edits Jack Evans (D.C. politician) you'll be notified by email. If you'd like to set that up, I can talk you through it. It's very easy. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove the section on constituent services. It wasn't reported only in the Post. The Washington Times reported on it: "When D.C. Council member Jack Evans gathered supporters earlier this year to raise money for his constituent-services fund, he spoke of how donations helped people struggling to pay their rent and helped send local children to camps. But the majority of the donations went for tickets to sporting events, public records show." [1] Given that tickets to sporting events don't help people pay their rent or send local children to camps, it seems that the use to buy tickets is significant enough that Evans obfuscated the matter then just as he wants to obfuscate it now. Going by later reports, it was significant enough that it was the sort of activity that led to consideration of a tightening of the ethics rules. [2]. It doesn't matter that the reason someone placed the information here might have been to embarrass Evans if Evans' activity was, in and of itself, embarrassing, as well as significant. As for the justification "other people were doing it too", I'm imagining each of the Congressmen caught in the Abscam scandal asking to have any mention of Abscam removed from their articles on the grounds that "others did it too". —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
John, I agree one can make arguments on both sides. But a lot of compromises were made to get to where we are. And you are right. Given how slender it is, does it make sense to highlight this one piece of history. Why not then pick out all of my other accomplishments. And then we are back where we started. I agree. Let's put this to bed. I just noticed that Anthony took out the tax parity act. That w as a significant piece of legislation which changed our tax structure. I authored it with David Catania. It is clearly more relevant than the constituent services fund and got broad coverage in the post and the times and even the wsj. Why not put it back. Because we compromised on having a barebones article. Evansjack1 ( talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that it is still there. Now the bond rating info that I played a key role in is gone. Evansjack1 ( talk) 17:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No slight was intended. You came to the discussion at the last moment. You acknowledge making edits as far back as April. And you feel very passionate about keeping a negative inference to me in the bio. For the record, I have never in these discussions stated that it's ok because everyone else does it. Secondly, you are dead wrong. The Washington post acknowledges in their article that it was 13 per cent of the total over 22 years. But more importantly for everyone, since the bio is so short, is the constituent services fund purchase of sports tickets the main issue that defines my 23 years of service. Bond ratings, financial recovery, bring baseball back, etc. this is why I don't want any part of Wikipedia. So my suggestion is to delete the constituent services paragraph or add back the mayor Williams stuff and the tax parity act. Just please make it balanced. As for largo, I am very suspicious given my experience with Wikipedia. Anthony and John have been fair. If largo wants to identify himself or herself, I may be less suspicious. Thank you all for your involvement. Now let's settle this one way or the other. Evansjack1 ( talk) 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I have heard everyone. Largo, I apologize. I ask you Anthony and John to take one last shot at this. It is obviously important to me that it be fair and accurate. As far as the percentages are concerned, go to footnote 14 and read the wash post article. They did the research. For 10 years it was 31per cent. For 20 years it was 13 per cent. It is right there. I don't even remember a wash times article. But as I said before, I just want a fair balanced bio. What happened during the mayors race and up to 10 days ago is not so. And forgive my earlier transgressions. I am brand new to Wikipedia and did the best I could. I did not know a talk page existed and still have trouble finding one I can type on. Thanks again. Evansjack1 ( talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
To john Anthony and Largo, I haven't heard anything in 24 hours. Please let me know where we stand concerning the constituent services paragraph. Thanks Evansjack1 ( talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Evansjack1, I've asked at the Technical Village Pump (where we discuss technical issues) how to set up email alerts using an iPad. I'll let you know when we get a response. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Evansjack1, if you go to "Desktop" mode and click "View history" at the top of an article, you'll find on the next page a link, "Page view statistics". That will show you how many people visited the article on any given day, with monthly totals. Select a month in the box under the graph that presently says "201409" (September, 2014). -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I I cant believe you are editing my page again after all we went through
Hi, Evensjack1. This story might interest you. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Thanks. Maybe largo and bang are republicans!!! Which does bring up an interesting point. Who did add to my page all the comments that were deleted. Was it bang or someone else? How can one find out? Evansjack1 ( talk) 02:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Abelmoschus Esculentus. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions —specifically
this edit to
Jack Evans (D.C. politician)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help Desk or
my talk page. Thank you. ~
Abelmoschus Esculentus (
talk to me)
04:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
04:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I’m talking about most of the gossipy stuff in the political positions section. You know exactly what I mean since you put a lot of it there. All I’m asking is a fair shake. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. You do it a disservice in you attempts to make me look bad. Again, why no reference to my election as Democratic National Committeeman, an election I just won by winning in all 8 wards. Yet you point out several times I lost running for Mayor. I co-chaired President Obama’s presidential campaign in DC in 2012. Yet you mention I was at Trumps inauguration parade. That’s what I’m talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:9EB:50BA:A478:C196 ( talk) 11:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
On my page, this is the ANI link. I’m doing my best to figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:9EB:50BA:A478:C196 ( talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I just did but can’t find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:9EB:50BA:A478:C196 ( talk) 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
A list of topics. None of which applied to me
When I open that section it is just my Wikipedia page. No discussion. How do I find the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B03A:464:55FB:7FC5:9B60:C7C4 ( talk) 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great. Any help you can give me in fixing my page is appreciated. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. How do I find the talk page. Can you print “here” and I can tap on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 ( talk) 22:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The Talk you set up doesn’t work when I touch it. Can you try again. Also, what’s left in the Digi section is wrong. As I have said many times, I did not “propose emergency legislation”, and “then withdraw it”. I circulated a letter of intent. There was no follow up so nothing happened. No withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE ( talk) 02:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
What am I doing wrong? I can’t get back to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE ( talk) 02:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
03:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Look, I get it. I clearly know I shouldn’t edit my page. But it was impossible to get your attention. And by that I mean all of you. Bang has done a real disservice. I need all of the rest of you to look at the page and do the right thing. I am now barred from editing. So it is up to the rest of you to fix my page. I’m not asking for special treatment, just fairness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. So make it so. When you read John McCain’s introduction it doesn’t say he ran for president twice and lost. Just a small example. I respectfully ask all of you to use your best judgment. Ignore Band because we know where he/ she is coming from. It appears I’m done. And frankly, I have done all I can over the last 4 years. It’s now up to you. But as a layman to Wikipedia, it is difficult to operate. Thanks for all you do. Signing off. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:138:AB1B:AFA7:898 ( talk) 00:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Evansjack1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am requesting that the block be lifted. I fully recognize that my actions in deleting portions of my page were wrong. They were done out of a sense of frustration that my concerns were not being addressed. Regardless, I should not have erased the entire paragraph. If the block is lifted, I commit that 1) I will not edit my own article and 2) that I will not engage in an edit war. I know that I don’t own my article. I apprecite your considering my request. Jack Evans
Decline reason:
Per total failure to follow simple instructions to log in, see below. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 ( talk) 18:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Largo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00D:2E8C:3D8F:74BF:E365:A4F3 ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The reason I don’t is because I don’t know how. Listen, you guys do this all the time. I don’t. To criticize me for not knowing how is not fair. The general public has no idea how to deal with Wikipedia. Just tell me how to do it and I will be glad to follow your instructions. And thank you for reaching out. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00D:2E8C:3D8F:74BF:E365:A4F3 ( talk) 05:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I will follow your directions and log in when I post anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00D:2E8C:3D8F:74BF:E365:A4F3 ( talk) 11:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. ----
Anthony Bradbury
"talk"
12:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
All the IP comments and the Unblock request were made by me. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.22 ( talk) 15:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@
Evansjack1: I'm a little concerned that, although you seem to have agreed to only edit while logged in to your account, you haven't actually managed to log in yet to edit this talk page. I know that editing Wikipedia can be complicated and convoluted sometimes, but logging in to Wikipedia is no more difficult than logging into any other service, like an email account or other online website. There is a "Log in" link on the upper right hand of any Wikipedia page, or if you are editing on a mobile device or tablet you'll need to tap the stack of three horizontal lines (it looks like this:
) at the top left to open the side menu, where you can then click on the "Log in" link.
Furthermore, if you aren't logged in and you click to edit any page (whether on the desktop version of the website or on mobile), you will see a banner saying "You are not logged in" and offering you the link to log in. You should get in the habit of checking that this banner is not displaying when you are editing a page so that you do not accidentally violate the terms of your unblock conditions. You can also check that you're logged in by looking that your username is displayed in the top right corner of the page (on a desktop computer or a laptop) or in the menu I instructed you how to open above (on mobile).
To sign your posts, as has been requested of you, you can either type ~~~~
at the end of your comments, or if you are on a computer, click the signature icon at the top left of the edit box (it looks like this:
). Unfortunately on a phone or tablet device you will need to open the symbols view of your keyboard by hitting the button to open the numerical keyboard (usually "123" or "?123") and then the button to open the symbols keyboard (usually labeled "#+=" or "=/<") to get to where you can find the key for
~
. This is understandably a lot of steps to do on mobile, which is why myself and many others tend to prefer to edit Wikipedia and make posts on discussion pages from desktop or laptop computers.
Hopefully this is all the information you will need to surpass this last hurdle. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I did it!!! I have officially figured out how to log in. Thanks for your help. And thanks for considering unblocking me. Jack Evansjack1 ( talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Evansjack1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
l am again requesting that the block be lifted. I have committed to not editing my account, to not engage in editing wars and to sign in. Also, all prior IP edits were mine Evansjack1 ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblock, with the agreement that Evansjack1 will only edit while logged into this account, will not edit war, and will not directly edit the article Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Please understand that if you violate these conditions, your account will be re-blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Evansjack1 ( talk) 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
How do I get independent editors to review this bio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:4181:1870:D9E5:AF86:22D2:F8B5 ( talk) 03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
TheQ Editor. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made with
this edit to
Jack Evans (D.C. politician), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
TheQ Editor
(Talk)
19:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Jack Evans (D.C. politician) with
this edit. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox.
Administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.
TheQ Editor
(Talk)
19:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to
Jack Evans (D.C. politician) with
this edit, you may be
blocked from editing.
TheQ Editor
(Talk)
19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Evansjack1. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Jack Evans (D.C. politician), you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 20:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Jack Evans (D.C. politician).
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
21:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello! Evansjack1,
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!
BarsofGold (
talk)
22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|
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:Evansjack1 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: ). Thank you.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The Washington Post said you had a live-in nanny. A Wikipedia editor does not have the right to remove an assertion supported by a valid source based on the editor's own say-so. You really need to pay attention when you are told how matters like these are handled on Wikipedia, and start discussing your concerns here rather than making your own changes to the article. Even politicians (if you really are Jack Evans) aren't exempt from the policies and guidelines of this website. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 14:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
14:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.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. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
If by some chance you aren't the D.C. Council member Jack Evans, you really should read this. You can be blocked for impersonating a real person. You might want to read it either way. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That biography does look unduly negative to me. I've left a note at the discussion board devoted to biography issues here. Hopefully some fresh eyes will help. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Despite the temporary block that has now ended, you continue to ignore all advice to bring your concerns to the Talk page and let disinterested editors sort them out rather than editing the page yourself. Your changes will continue to be reverted as often as necessary, for as long as you disregard the
WP:POINT to which your attention has now already been drawn twice
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
19:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that you should review that material again, as well as the policies on assuming good faith. It is not a good idea to point fingers at particular editors and blame them for "problems" when it all may boil down to differing views of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Reasonable people can disagree. And I reiterate what I said at the Jack Evans page - you really should refrain from editing it. There are at least three editors working to make the article a bit more evenhanded, and it will be better if you let the process play out. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 22:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Evansjack1 ( talk) 15:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.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. — MusikAnimal talk 21:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
you need to delete the constituent services fund reference. Also that I received the third highest rating from gala. Actually you should include that I received the highest in the last 6 election cycles.
Evansjack1, I'll repeat here what I posted on the article's talk page about the constituent fund issue, in case you'd like to respond here. We don't usually report unsubstantiated insinuations of impropriety unless the claims reached a very high level of visibility. Then we report them only so readers who are aware of the innuendos are left in no doubt that there was no formal finding of impropriety or illegality. It's a question of walking the fine line between compounding the harm by repeating the innuendo and setting the record straight. Was this a massive scandal that most DC readers are likely to have heard about? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for you recent comments. I have had the opportunity to read other comment on a site I stumbled on. A discussion among editors. Johns dc. You have been helpful but I disagree with you constituent services analysis. Just because the post did the story doesn't mean it is credible. The reporters Nikita Stuart and Tim whatever are both gone. They acknowledged that they found nothing. There was no investigation by the Ocf. Ask them. It was a routine audit which came out fine. There are so many other things to include if you want to be fair. Secondly, the GLAA sentence should be expande or deleted. I have gotten a perfect 10 for 20 years. Print that. As I previously stated, this has been quite an experience dealing with Wikipedia. Thanks again for your efforts. Question, how do I find that editors page again?
Anthonyhcole. Thanks for your offer. I would recommend just deleting the last sentence and not adding anything. I have been the leading advocate for LGBT rights on the council for 23 years, long before it was popular. I was the first to call for gay marriage in 1998. But people know that. Just deleting the sentence as johnindc advocates would be great. Also, please read the wash post article on the constituent services fund sports tickets. The statement in my bio is just wrong. The amounts mentioned only cover the past 10 years. The posting says 22 years. When you go back 22 years sports tickets are only 13 per cent of the spending. That is why the article got no attention. Whoever posted it selectively took information to embarrass me during the election. Again thanks for you help. I think I finally have mastered this. And johnindc thanks for the link. I can finally find these things. Finally, I can't find the 4 Tilden on my I pad. Where do I look?
John, now that Anthony took out the puff stuff, let's get rid of the constituent services paragraph and be done. This has been an interesting week and I have really learned about Wikipedia.
Evansjack1 (
talk)
00:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC) I can even sign now!!! (Yay!
Anthonyhcole.)
Evansjack1, you can set your preferences (behind a link at the top of the page) so that whenever anyone edits Jack Evans (D.C. politician) you'll be notified by email. If you'd like to set that up, I can talk you through it. It's very easy. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove the section on constituent services. It wasn't reported only in the Post. The Washington Times reported on it: "When D.C. Council member Jack Evans gathered supporters earlier this year to raise money for his constituent-services fund, he spoke of how donations helped people struggling to pay their rent and helped send local children to camps. But the majority of the donations went for tickets to sporting events, public records show." [1] Given that tickets to sporting events don't help people pay their rent or send local children to camps, it seems that the use to buy tickets is significant enough that Evans obfuscated the matter then just as he wants to obfuscate it now. Going by later reports, it was significant enough that it was the sort of activity that led to consideration of a tightening of the ethics rules. [2]. It doesn't matter that the reason someone placed the information here might have been to embarrass Evans if Evans' activity was, in and of itself, embarrassing, as well as significant. As for the justification "other people were doing it too", I'm imagining each of the Congressmen caught in the Abscam scandal asking to have any mention of Abscam removed from their articles on the grounds that "others did it too". —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
John, I agree one can make arguments on both sides. But a lot of compromises were made to get to where we are. And you are right. Given how slender it is, does it make sense to highlight this one piece of history. Why not then pick out all of my other accomplishments. And then we are back where we started. I agree. Let's put this to bed. I just noticed that Anthony took out the tax parity act. That w as a significant piece of legislation which changed our tax structure. I authored it with David Catania. It is clearly more relevant than the constituent services fund and got broad coverage in the post and the times and even the wsj. Why not put it back. Because we compromised on having a barebones article. Evansjack1 ( talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm disappointed that it is still there. Now the bond rating info that I played a key role in is gone. Evansjack1 ( talk) 17:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No slight was intended. You came to the discussion at the last moment. You acknowledge making edits as far back as April. And you feel very passionate about keeping a negative inference to me in the bio. For the record, I have never in these discussions stated that it's ok because everyone else does it. Secondly, you are dead wrong. The Washington post acknowledges in their article that it was 13 per cent of the total over 22 years. But more importantly for everyone, since the bio is so short, is the constituent services fund purchase of sports tickets the main issue that defines my 23 years of service. Bond ratings, financial recovery, bring baseball back, etc. this is why I don't want any part of Wikipedia. So my suggestion is to delete the constituent services paragraph or add back the mayor Williams stuff and the tax parity act. Just please make it balanced. As for largo, I am very suspicious given my experience with Wikipedia. Anthony and John have been fair. If largo wants to identify himself or herself, I may be less suspicious. Thank you all for your involvement. Now let's settle this one way or the other. Evansjack1 ( talk) 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok I have heard everyone. Largo, I apologize. I ask you Anthony and John to take one last shot at this. It is obviously important to me that it be fair and accurate. As far as the percentages are concerned, go to footnote 14 and read the wash post article. They did the research. For 10 years it was 31per cent. For 20 years it was 13 per cent. It is right there. I don't even remember a wash times article. But as I said before, I just want a fair balanced bio. What happened during the mayors race and up to 10 days ago is not so. And forgive my earlier transgressions. I am brand new to Wikipedia and did the best I could. I did not know a talk page existed and still have trouble finding one I can type on. Thanks again. Evansjack1 ( talk) 23:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
To john Anthony and Largo, I haven't heard anything in 24 hours. Please let me know where we stand concerning the constituent services paragraph. Thanks Evansjack1 ( talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Evansjack1, I've asked at the Technical Village Pump (where we discuss technical issues) how to set up email alerts using an iPad. I'll let you know when we get a response. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Evansjack1, if you go to "Desktop" mode and click "View history" at the top of an article, you'll find on the next page a link, "Page view statistics". That will show you how many people visited the article on any given day, with monthly totals. Select a month in the box under the graph that presently says "201409" (September, 2014). -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I I cant believe you are editing my page again after all we went through
Hi, Evensjack1. This story might interest you. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Thanks. Maybe largo and bang are republicans!!! Which does bring up an interesting point. Who did add to my page all the comments that were deleted. Was it bang or someone else? How can one find out? Evansjack1 ( talk) 02:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Abelmoschus Esculentus. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of
your recent contributions —specifically
this edit to
Jack Evans (D.C. politician)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the
Help Desk or
my talk page. Thank you. ~
Abelmoschus Esculentus (
talk to me)
04:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
04:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I’m talking about most of the gossipy stuff in the political positions section. You know exactly what I mean since you put a lot of it there. All I’m asking is a fair shake. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. You do it a disservice in you attempts to make me look bad. Again, why no reference to my election as Democratic National Committeeman, an election I just won by winning in all 8 wards. Yet you point out several times I lost running for Mayor. I co-chaired President Obama’s presidential campaign in DC in 2012. Yet you mention I was at Trumps inauguration parade. That’s what I’m talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:9EB:50BA:A478:C196 ( talk) 11:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
On my page, this is the ANI link. I’m doing my best to figure this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:9EB:50BA:A478:C196 ( talk) 11:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I just did but can’t find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:417F:F5CC:9EB:50BA:A478:C196 ( talk) 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
A list of topics. None of which applied to me
When I open that section it is just my Wikipedia page. No discussion. How do I find the discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B03A:464:55FB:7FC5:9B60:C7C4 ( talk) 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great. Any help you can give me in fixing my page is appreciated. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. How do I find the talk page. Can you print “here” and I can tap on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 ( talk) 22:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The Talk you set up doesn’t work when I touch it. Can you try again. Also, what’s left in the Digi section is wrong. As I have said many times, I did not “propose emergency legislation”, and “then withdraw it”. I circulated a letter of intent. There was no follow up so nothing happened. No withdrawal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE ( talk) 02:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
What am I doing wrong? I can’t get back to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B003:9239:603A:7BCC:32FF:75CE ( talk) 02:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GorillaWarfare
(talk)
03:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Look, I get it. I clearly know I shouldn’t edit my page. But it was impossible to get your attention. And by that I mean all of you. Bang has done a real disservice. I need all of the rest of you to look at the page and do the right thing. I am now barred from editing. So it is up to the rest of you to fix my page. I’m not asking for special treatment, just fairness. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip page. So make it so. When you read John McCain’s introduction it doesn’t say he ran for president twice and lost. Just a small example. I respectfully ask all of you to use your best judgment. Ignore Band because we know where he/ she is coming from. It appears I’m done. And frankly, I have done all I can over the last 4 years. It’s now up to you. But as a layman to Wikipedia, it is difficult to operate. Thanks for all you do. Signing off. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:4400:DDDD:138:AB1B:AFA7:898 ( talk) 00:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Evansjack1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am requesting that the block be lifted. I fully recognize that my actions in deleting portions of my page were wrong. They were done out of a sense of frustration that my concerns were not being addressed. Regardless, I should not have erased the entire paragraph. If the block is lifted, I commit that 1) I will not edit my own article and 2) that I will not engage in an edit war. I know that I don’t own my article. I apprecite your considering my request. Jack Evans
Decline reason:
Per total failure to follow simple instructions to log in, see below. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.20 ( talk) 18:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Largo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00D:2E8C:3D8F:74BF:E365:A4F3 ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The reason I don’t is because I don’t know how. Listen, you guys do this all the time. I don’t. To criticize me for not knowing how is not fair. The general public has no idea how to deal with Wikipedia. Just tell me how to do it and I will be glad to follow your instructions. And thank you for reaching out. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00D:2E8C:3D8F:74BF:E365:A4F3 ( talk) 05:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I will follow your directions and log in when I post anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B00D:2E8C:3D8F:74BF:E365:A4F3 ( talk) 11:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. ----
Anthony Bradbury
"talk"
12:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
All the IP comments and the Unblock request were made by me. Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.82.84.22 ( talk) 15:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@
Evansjack1: I'm a little concerned that, although you seem to have agreed to only edit while logged in to your account, you haven't actually managed to log in yet to edit this talk page. I know that editing Wikipedia can be complicated and convoluted sometimes, but logging in to Wikipedia is no more difficult than logging into any other service, like an email account or other online website. There is a "Log in" link on the upper right hand of any Wikipedia page, or if you are editing on a mobile device or tablet you'll need to tap the stack of three horizontal lines (it looks like this:
) at the top left to open the side menu, where you can then click on the "Log in" link.
Furthermore, if you aren't logged in and you click to edit any page (whether on the desktop version of the website or on mobile), you will see a banner saying "You are not logged in" and offering you the link to log in. You should get in the habit of checking that this banner is not displaying when you are editing a page so that you do not accidentally violate the terms of your unblock conditions. You can also check that you're logged in by looking that your username is displayed in the top right corner of the page (on a desktop computer or a laptop) or in the menu I instructed you how to open above (on mobile).
To sign your posts, as has been requested of you, you can either type ~~~~
at the end of your comments, or if you are on a computer, click the signature icon at the top left of the edit box (it looks like this:
). Unfortunately on a phone or tablet device you will need to open the symbols view of your keyboard by hitting the button to open the numerical keyboard (usually "123" or "?123") and then the button to open the symbols keyboard (usually labeled "#+=" or "=/<") to get to where you can find the key for
~
. This is understandably a lot of steps to do on mobile, which is why myself and many others tend to prefer to edit Wikipedia and make posts on discussion pages from desktop or laptop computers.
Hopefully this is all the information you will need to surpass this last hurdle. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I did it!!! I have officially figured out how to log in. Thanks for your help. And thanks for considering unblocking me. Jack Evansjack1 ( talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Evansjack1 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
l am again requesting that the block be lifted. I have committed to not editing my account, to not engage in editing wars and to sign in. Also, all prior IP edits were mine Evansjack1 ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Unblock, with the agreement that Evansjack1 will only edit while logged into this account, will not edit war, and will not directly edit the article Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Please understand that if you violate these conditions, your account will be re-blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Evansjack1 ( talk) 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.