User talk:JazzClam

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi JazzClam! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to label sections, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I have said in my talk page that I do not have adequate proficiency in English. The reason is that I did not get adequate or ideal schooling of the language.I have taught English myself through watching Hollywood films. For some reasons, I however love to edit the English one. Thanks for guiding me. Ppt2003 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppt2003: That's all right, It's what we editors do! If you have any questions regarding wikipedia or need any help, feel free to ask me or the teahouse! JazzClam (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Can I trout myself? JazzClam (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yup

May 2020

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Aseprite, from its old location at User:JazzClam/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. KylieTastic (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aseprite (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, JazzClam! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aseprite (May 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by PrussianOwl were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
PrussianOwl (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: Thanks! I assumed my infobox contributions didn't need much of an edit summary as I thought they were quite self explanatory, I also didn't really know what to write xD. But thanks for the reminder! JazzClam (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Bagumba. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Killing of George Floyd, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You'll need to establish consensus that World Tribune is a reliable source. There was a prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#World_Tribune —Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Thanks, Bagumba, I had not realized the world tribune was an unreliable source, I replaced it with NPR, (Which I'm pretty damn sure is reliable), and also added a little bit more. JazzClam (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR source didn't support your text about the nature of the fentanyl dose. I also don't think this "dispute" is notable enough to be in the lead. Feel free to establish consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Killing of George Floyd. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Postal voting in the United States

Stop icon

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans Listen, the article has some serious NPOV issues in it, and my most recent edit, in "Unequal Signature Rejection rates" just specifies a reason why many people believe there are higher rejection rates amongst young and minority voters, I cited my sources, all four of em' and I made sure everything was ship shape. Could you please tell me why you believe I am in an "Edit War?"

Ark Encounter

On Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS). Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been banned from editing post-1932 American politics articles.

You have been sanctioned by unanimous decision reached at the WP:ANI#NorthBySouthBaranof case you had filed.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sebastian 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Since the community decided your topic ban, you have continued to make edits related to post-1932 American politics, such as to the articles

Please be aware that such edits are violations of the ban, even if, as was the case for most of them, they are uncontroversial. Because you may not have been aware of that, I will assume good faith and just leave it at this friendly reminder this time. But please understand that a ban is a serious matter, it means that you could get blocked even for such edits. I therefore recommend you to take any articles that might tempt you to further violate the topic ban off your watchlist. ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JazzClam. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JazzClam. I have closed the AE request. You may refer to my closing summary for details. Please do not hesitate to query me about the ban at any time. El_C 00:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • El_C's close is 100% correct, but I'll elaborate on it just a bit, because I think the status of your ban was never clearly and accurately implemented and explained to you, and that's not your fault, and we're essentially giving you a free pass here because of that. However, I don't want to see confusion about this ban ever again, so I'm going to formally explain it to you just so we can never be unsure of whether you understand the situation going forward. Your editing restriction is as follows: Pursuant to a unanimous community consensus here, you are, and have been, indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. This applies to making any edit, or editing any page relating to the subject area. While we've given you a break here in favor of clarifying this one final time, we have not overlooked the fact that you were notified of a ban from such articles specifically, and you have violated that ban as it was explained to you multiple times, including after a warning. Make no mistake, you are now on a zero-tolerance, final warning status, and any violation, no matter how minor, no matter how vague, is going to be met with a lengthy block. This topic ban is formally logged on the record at WP:EDRC and should be considered effective as of today. If you have any questions, you're welcome to follow up with me as well. Note that neither El_C nor myself are the ones who have sanctioned you, this sanction was imposed by the community back in November, we're just making sure you understand the situation to the best of our abilities. Best, ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm and El C:: JazzClam has repeatedly violated their ban: unambiguously on February 12 by editing National Rifle Association and on March 9 concerning whether some of Trump's statements were false or not, and arguably in two edits [1] [2] on February 23 to Talk:Abortion. --JBL (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block

To enforce edit restrictions placed by the community, and for flagrant violations to said community-imposed WP:AP2 topic ban (recorded at WP:RESTRICT),
you have been blocked from editing for 2 weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. 
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Reminder to administrators: Edit restrictions placed by the community are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

El_C 13:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine Conflict...please fill out my survey?

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]