Jump to content

User talk:jalenBarks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.181.119.244 (talk) at 20:35, 20 August 2017 (→Do you know the subject?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Edit request

For this request, why did you feel this would require consensus before being done? It's hardly contentious. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Thanks for reversing the decision. I wasn't sure of how to make the change myself since I know Metacritic for movie and video game reviews. The info you provided on the article's talk page is very helpful for my improvement in responding to these requests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you removing dead links....

Instead, see if there's an archive available here, here, or here before removing a site which is completely dead. In case you didn't know, which I thought maybe you didn't. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also add the archive to cite templates as "archiveurl" rather than replacing the original url parameter. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can use IABot to do this automatically. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI edit requests

Hi. I notice you've been declining requested edits from COI editors lately. I'm having trouble seeing the reasoning behind some decisions:

  • National Renewable Energy Laboratory: A somewhat detailed request, including replacing dead links and changing an all-caps ref title to title case. You said "I actually don't see this as an improvement."
  • Owens-Illinois: WP:Rs#Exceptions says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." That the company was the result of a merger is neither promotional nor controversial.
  • Center for Photography at Woodstock: Declined because "This isn't specific; where exactly should this go?" Why not wait for the answer to your question before marking it declined?
  • Curiosity (rover) "Before we can complete this request, please declare your relationship with this subject. This request does not show your conflict of interest." Policy is that COI editors should declare their connection; no argument there. But again, why not wait for an answer to your request before declining theirs?
  • Florida Municipal Power Agency: The membership of their board as listed in the article is outdated. They provide references and request that the listing be revised. You declined it, saying that the change should be discussed first. Not only does this make no sense, but on July 8, Altamel pointed out to you (see "Edit requests" above) the difficulty in this for COI editors.

The issue of COI contributors is a thorny one. It can be easy to find problems with their requests, especially if you've been editing for a while and know the policies and guidelines. By requesting edits, however, they're trying to do the right thing. Please take more time to review the requests. AGF. Allow them time to answer questions you have before declining requests. If you're not sure, let someone else deal with it. You're not alone here, and you don't have to do it all yourself.

Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. Both you and Altamel have been very helpful to me in this part of the encyclopedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your diligence in reducing the edit request backlog is invaluable to Wikipedia. Every edit request patroller will have a different style of judgment—and BlackcurrantTea does raise many valid points—but assessing edit requests inevitably entails a learning curve, and you are definitely getting better at applying the correct policies. Altamel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:jd02022092 - wanted to thank you for the guidance on my recent COI request over on Exelixis. I see your point about what would benefit the article - and following your guidance, I was wondering if you'd be willing to follow through on your suggestion to reduce the named people on the box in the right hand side to just include the CEO/President. Thanks! Levydr (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is not required. As I stated, the current list in the infobox is already properly sourced, so there is no need to remove the information. Actually, come to think of it, I might consider retracting my decline as I just noticed that VB00 implemented your request but forgot to mark the request as answered. Sorry for the inconvenience. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response/action to my edit request on the IKEA page! Stwrhbgmon (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBA trades/signings

There is long-standing consensus not to update these until officially cleared with the league and announced by the team or league. The reason these aren't updated until reported by the teams is that the League has to review them and sometimes they don't happen (the league rejects them, somebody fails a physical, etc). Please don't update player articles until the deal is finalized (i.e. - reported by the team(s) involved). The news' job is to report signings as they happen to get the scoop. This isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia so having these updated immediately is less important than updating them when the results are official. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will remember this for future edit requests of this nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Manning

In reference to this edit - that was disruptive, the edit should have been reverted and the user reported (I've since blocked them). I'm also alerting you to the presence of discretionary sanctions in this area, not because you've done anything wrong, but purely to make you aware of their existence for this subject area. I would advise you read the information about discretionary sanctions if you're going to make pseudo-administrative edits in future, so you can avoid getting yourself into unintended trouble. Nick (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Edited my user talk page

Did you accidentally deleted messages on my talk page?Sue (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Sue (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sue: It might have been a mistake. Please see the page history for my initial reason. If you have reverted it already, thank you for doing so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edit reason was sock puppetry investigation on Reid62 or something to that effect. So should I revert and attempt to continue conversation with the alleged sock puppet? or should I ignore the deleted message? I haven't visited Wikipedia for a while as an editor and have never run into any administrator related activities, so I am unsure what is the current protocol/ right way to respond. Would be great if you can give me a hint. :-) Sue (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not an administrator so I would not give the best advice. However, the IP is currently blocked by administrator RickinBaltimore for edit warring, so if it were me, I would just ignore the message. But again, the decision is entirely up to you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sue, I'd leave the edit removed at this point. Since this was an IP of a blocked user, it's best to not give them the attention they are looking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, cool. Thanks. Sue (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Malinaccier (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Mirisch and Marvin Mirisch wikipedia pages

Hi Jd22292,

I made a request to changes for the harold mirisch page and also the marvin mirisch page. The information on both their pages is incorrect as well as the sources. I made the request months ago. On July 14th, i saw that the changes were denied.

Declined. Request is dated and therefore no longer considered an improvement. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that means. Any help is appreciated.

Thank you Lmassistant (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your question Lmassistant. I am sorry for the decline, but I was cleaning out old edit requests in an effort to clean out the long backlog on AnomieBOT's EDITREQTable and didn't read through your request entirely. Also, my apologies for deleting the initial message, but just as a reminder that you do not have to send me the same message again as I have deleted your message from my Talk page as an acknowledgement that I have read your answer, but it can still be found in the page history as seen in this revision. Take some time to make a couple improvements to your request, and once you're ready to resubmit the requests to the article's talk pages at Talk:Harold Mirisch and Talk:Marvin Mirisch, please post them there. I will let someone else review the requests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm templates

In case it would be helpful in the future, if you post a template on a user talk page by accident and recognize that no one has noticed/responded to it, no one will object if you just undo the edit. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang Theory

I don't see how my edit to Talk:The Big Bang Theory was at all bad. I merely suggested something that I thought would be a worthwhile contribution to the article. Please review my edit request once again, as I have revised it with more reliable sources cited, and please let me know if it would be good to add to the article. If not, please inform me on what would make it acceptable. 50.29.96.108 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit your talk page to find out why it was disruptive. You basically reopened a request I already answered and removed my answer. It is bad faith to remove talk page discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling girl groups

Hi. Please do not accept unsourced edits at List of best-selling girl groups. That article was protected precisely because fans kept inflating groups' sales in spite of what the cited sources actually say. Hence it is important to actually check that the "source" these fans cite actually support their claimed numbers. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: Thank you for informing me. I will leave the article alone for a few days. If it persists, it's best to keep requesting semi-protection until the admins are convinced the article deserves indefinite protection. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox National Arena League team, Template:Infobox Indoor Football League team and Template:Infobox af2 team

Template:Infobox National Arena League team, Template:Infobox Indoor Football League team and Template:Infobox af2 team have been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Arena Football League team. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review found "However, the causal link between suicide-related Internet use and suicidal thoughts and behaviours is still unclear"[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though an edit request by the same IP on 13 Reasons Why asked for the same reference to be included. If it's possible to replace, then please do so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have high standards for medical content. A research letter is not a sufficient source[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Hasselhoff

You recently undid one of my edits to David Hasselhoff#Knight Rider. The line: "Now, over 33 years later, the show is still playing throughout the world.[12]" is not consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see MOS:RELTIME) due to its in-the-present phrasing. I revised it to the Wikipedia:As_of phrasing as recommended, with a backdate of 2015 because that's when the reference was accessed. Why undo it?

Now I've had a second opportunity to view the reference (https://www.nbc.com/knight-rider-classic?nbc=1), and it strikes me that the citation fails verification entirely. Just because the show is available to American viewers on NBC's website doesn't mean it's "still playing throughout the world". The sentence should be removed, better phrased, or better sourced. --2600:1008:B059:121E:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

I see you've added {{discouraged}} to your talk page. Realize that every editor here make mistakes too. There are a few things I've done that I cringe to myself about from time to time.
The key is to learn from them, as they grow your experience. As long as editors learn from mistakes, the encyclopedia actually benefits from them in the long run because editors will know not to make the same mistakes again. Approach new things cautiously, seek feedback from others on how you are doing from time to time, and adjust accordingly. See you around, Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I see that you have added {{discouraged}} to your talk page, all editors make mistakes, I have made several over my time here contributing, the important thing is to learn from them and improve yourself. If you ever have any questions or need any help, I am generally always around (if not, will reply asap) - just drop a line on my talk page or via email (my user page has link). Other editors and admins are also probably willing to help - I know that Mz7 (an administrator) has posted a message here as well. See you around,

TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question about my recent warning

hey, I edited a page adding information on the Need for Speed Payback page and I got a message from you saying that i broke the rules or something. i don't understand how I broke the rules when everything had sources and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeheadinvade (talk • contribs) 05:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. See WP:NOTMANUAL. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snakeheadinvade As for the edit that followed, the edit contradicts what is in the source. Please always prepare your edits with a reliable source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, im new to wiki, so I don't know if there is a way to reply to your reply. but what im not understanding is how my source isn't reliable when it was the official Need for Speed website. can you maybe explain a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeheadinvade (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snakeheadinvade Don't worry about it. That's why I provided links to help you. See, the issue here is that the official website itself is a primary source, which we cannot accept alone for a change. For more on what the WikiProject for video games accepts, see WP:VG/RS.
Some other things to consider in your time on Wiki: sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~), and reply to posts with the "Edit" button on the section you are replying to. I took the liberty of combining both threads here for you. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd22292: Although reliable secondary sources are preferred, primary sources like the official NFS site are acceptable. The issue with Snakeheadinvade's edits is that they go into too much gameplay detail, so far as to be written like a manual or guide. Like you said, Wikipedia is not a game guide. What would be acceptable is for Snake to sum up the gameplay elements into a brief overview in a 'Gameplay' section with the NFS website sourced, and not get into the embellishments the developer/publisher may be providing. Even better would be to find a secondary source (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) that discusses the same thing, and use them. TarkusABtalk 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I like to point out that some of the information was copied straight from the Need for Speed website, which is COPYVIO. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheDeviantPro This must be a job for WP:RFO then. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help!

Thank you for reviewing the edits and making the proposed changes to the CriticalBlue page - the time and effort you put in to doing this is greatly appreciated! I'm sorry for the delay with this message, I hadn't logged in to wikipedia for a while Houseonbluehill (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you switch CrateIO back to CrateDB?

HI Jalen, thanks very much for making edits to the CrateDB page! I think my edit suggestions on the talk page were confusing maybe...I wasn't suggesting that "CrateDB" be switched to "CrateIO," which is a change you made. To clarify... "CrateDB" is the name of the DBMS software that page talks about, so the page should be entitled CrateDB. Crate.io (aka "CrateIO") is the name of the company that does most of the development on the software (which is open source).

Any chance you can undo the page title and CrateDB->CrateIO reference changes you made? So basically switch all the CrateIO references back to CrateDB :-)

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again,

Andy DatabACE (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your edits. I saw you removing dead links but it might be better to just leave them there. Wikipedia:Link rot isn't a policy or guideline but its says "Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with [dead link‍] for a long time". I actually found an archived version of one of the dead links and used the title of another of the dead links to find the article on a different site "AFL, ESPN ENTER INTO FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT". What do you think? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Rubio

To be honest, I haven't looked at the Ricky Rubio page for years. I also gave up my admin rights, so I wouldn't be able to change the protection status myself. You can do whatever you think is best. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Glad to hear you are feeling better and to see you editing actively. It's fine to take a break from editing if you are too stressed—Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of life. Altamel (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've decided after the discouragement was over that COI edit requests are not my forté; it seems I have a major flaw at understanding what's promotional and what isn't. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll gain better judgement through experience, don't worry. For me, a good rule of thumb is to put myself in the eyes of a casual reader. If I read the article after the edit request was implemented, would I better understand the subject? Would I trust this article? Alternatively, if I knew all the facts already and then stumbled upon the article, would I feel misled by Wikipedia? It takes time to develop this "sixth sense." Find your own pace for editing Wikipeda, go slowly if you need to assess a situation before acting on it, and you will succeed. Best of luck, Altamel (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering...

...how this is more relevant of a response compared to what I responded with, considering they aren't requesting user rights, nor it can even be construed as such? SkyWarrior 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like to add content onto articles" sounds to me like the user is going around protected articles and hoping that an administrator would notice them and grant them the right to do so. Perhaps you could also check that user's contributions and see if they've been making the same requests to other protected articles. A user's contributions might tell you something about that user. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually checked the user's contribs; they have less than 100 edits; only four of them are to talk pages, three of them to Talk:The Emoji Movie. I don't see it as someone who wants a user right but rather as someone who needs to be more detailed in their edit requests, hence why I feel your responses are unnecessary compared to mine. I'll leave them a message on explaining edit requests in more detail. SkyWarrior 01:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already started the thread. You can help the user out by clarifying. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent report at UAA

You reported Thomasbickerdike at WP:UAA. You will note that in Wikipedia:Username policy the section on "Stage names" says: Users may use their stage name, pen name, or other nickname as their username, provided that it uniquely identifies a single person. This is not considered promotional, even if commercial performances or publications are made under such a name. Accordingly, I have declined the report. Please bear this in mind in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jalen, I just wanted to folllow up on your UAA report for TheGreatWikiLord. The user has been around since 2015, and I don't think their username was disruptive or misleading per WP:MISLEADNAME or WP:DISRUPTNAME, so I have declined your report. I just wanted to give you a heads up. Best, ceranthor 18:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for why you are removing wikilinks from references? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point in their use. AWB typically detects when multiple wikilinks to a single article are used, and while I understand the purpose of some links, I don't see the point in others. Perhaps we can reach a consensus at WP:VG for this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've rollbacked some of your recent "AWB cleanup" edits. Please do not use AWB to remove wikilinks in citations. It is not helpful. Repeated wikilinks in citations has never been considered as a case of overlinking. In fact, MOS:DUPLINK says the exact opposite. Please disable this function when using AWB. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The1337gamer: Thank you for doing this. Please continue checking for more such edits in my history; the edits you reverted don't appear to be the only changes I've made. Though my only question is what setting disables interwiki link checks. I can't seem to find it in the User Manual. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. It would be better to ask at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I thought that AWB did not remove duplicate wikilinks on the default settings. Whenever I use AWB, I disable all automatic changes anyway, so that it only makes the changes I specifically set. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The1337gamer: I've gone through my whole edit history from the past week and reverted all of my AWB wikilink removals. Thanks for informing me of the guideline, along with Masem at WT:VG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWB does not remove duplicate wikilinks. It just provides a list of them. It's editor's choice how to deal them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga's Legacy

I know that is not a complete list. There are many more artists that she has influenced, but I think that huge artists like Katy Perry and Ariana Grande should be listed there, because Lady Gaga's legacy is seen throughout them. Maybe you can remove Ashley Tisdale and add those two. The sources that I posted on Talk:Lady Gaga are reliable, checked and true. Thanks in advance!JoDash (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This request is interesting. While the episode does not mention the dog, the corresponding article does mention the dog as well as many articles found online. I am not sure if that matters, but we should aim to be as factual as possible. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow you to revert my edit then. I apologize for not checking nor asking the IP for sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're fine, I didn't know if the episode summaries were taken from somewhere or not, so it took me awhile to do some research. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CAS page for Symbolic Math Toolbox

I made the updates for the release and date as requested, can you please update the CAS page now for Symbolic Math Toolbox?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_algebra_systems

Thanks Sarah Palfreyman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalfrey (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring and exceeding 3RR at Uncaged, Vol. 1. When the block expires, please return to Talk:Uncaged, Vol. 1 and continue to discuss the changes to the page within the existing discussion. If other editors refuse to take part in the discussion or refuse to accept consensus, you can request that they individually be blocked for disruptive editing or in extraordinary circumstances, that the page be protected. You must not edit war even if you believe yourself to be in the right or that your edits are more valid than another user's. Nick (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: It might be considered edit warring, but the user did not exceed WP:3RR. There has to be four reverts, but I only see three ([3], [4], [5]). This doesn't count because it was a self-revert. Also I know Jd22292 isn't new, but they were never given a warning. Sro23 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sro23: Do you honestly believe Jd22292 needs a warning to be told to not edit war ? I've struck the 3RR issue, as you say, it's a self revert, which would of course suggest Jd22292 is familiar with the 3RR policy already... Nick (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've unblocked, 24 hours is maybe a little too harsh for a first time edit war. Nick (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: Although I can agree it was a bit harsh, please also see this diff. I had argued over naming conventions on another article and ceased when the warning came. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was a little too harsh. Imagine if we got blocks every time we simply came close to breaching 3rr, it would be crazy. I think that occasionally it's better to just let the edit wars happen. Sro23 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Please, be more cautious with your editing. I talked to the blocking administrator on your behalf, but you can't count on getting a quick unblock in the future. It was very generous of Nick to give you a pass this time around. Think before you post: editing Wikipedia skillfully is akin to defensive driving. If you just barrel ahead with whatever edit comes to your mind, most of the time nothing serious will happen, but inevitably, you'll inadvertently violate policy or antagonize other editors. On the other hand, if you anticipate how other editors might disagree with your edits, how other editors could view your edits as violating policy, and judge whether to proceed or not based on how other editors might react, you'll save yourself much needless grief. Edit warring, vandalism, civility—these all can have borderline cases that different admins will react to with different standards.

There are situations where editing boldly are good, but it would be beneficial for you to change your editing flow and exercise an abundance of caution—at least for a while. Talk with editors if you sense a conflict is brewing. Read up on policy pages if you think you might be breaking a rule. I always reread WP:CSD before placing a speedy tag I am unfamiliar with. Heck, even ANI and Arbcom cases are good reading material. I read them to understand what causes disputes and what deescalates conflicts. Just think before you post. It would be a pity if your very valuable editing was stymied by conflicts with other users. You've had a setback, but you will overcome it. Wishing you the best, Altamel (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I hope that my writings aren't controversial. If so then let us negotiate the terms of how the articles shall be written to reach a fair compromise. 2600:8803:BE00:17F:980F:177F:5872:F15B (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least there's a clause of the Arbitration decision you're following: discussing the issues. However, you have violated the "no restore" clause of the decision: once an edit is reverted its original author may not restore it for a full 24 hours. It has been less than 24 hours, even less than an hour since the initial reversions of your edits. However, I would rather you go to the article's Talk pages rather than my own, as other editors are involved with the individual articles you edited, and they would be better inclined to answer your concerns. Thanks for coming to my Talk page anyway, but I have no stance currently on the matter, other than taking the articles to RfPP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit to Ted Kaczynski

Hi there, I was just wondering why my edit to Ted Kaczynski preserving links was reverted? Was it caught up with the other edit reverted and unintentionally reverted along with it or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. For some reason, your edit got caught up in the Pending Changes backlog that included disruption by an IP. You are free to make the changes again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification on that, I figured that that was the most probable explanation due to the fact that the edit (was intended at least) to improve the article in the event that the site changes or whatnot, but wanted to double check before remaking the edit to avoid any conflicts and make sure I wasn't making a mistake that you were correcting I didn't know I was making. Anyhow, thanks for the clarification and I have remade the edit. Happy editing! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the subject?

Please explain me why Sweden and Switzerland should be in that list.They 've 0.Italy has even nuclear sharing.80.181.119.244 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JalenBarks&oldid=796435868"