This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jlcoving. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. Thanks for your message -- personally, I try to make sure my edits derive from policy, as opposed to my personal opinions or a point of view. I'm glad we have people like yourself to add new content, because I'm typically only here to learn and to clarify things that trip me up when I'm reading along. As far as JWL, I really don't feel one way or the other about him, his capture, or his incarceration. I just like to see that what gets put into Wikipedia makes sense. As far as actual content (as opposed to grammar or style issues) I'm more interested in the sources that are being cited, the reliability of the sources, and the accuracy of what goes into the article. If something's reliable, and helps promote a neutral point of view, I say have at it. Hope you're having a Merry Christmas, and good luck with Law School... ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories on your userpage
Hi there, I commented out the categories on your userpage here. For categories that should be added to userpages can be found here. Make sure to keep this in mind in the future. Thank you. — Σxplicit00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've also deleted your userpage, for the same reasons. Again, I can email you the contents if you want them, but we cannot leave those kind of assertions lying around. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Re:Section blanking
Articles have sections. Take, for instance, Andrew Johnston (singer)- there is a "History" section, which then has subsections, the first of which is "Carlisle Cathedral Choir". Section blanking is simply removing all content from a certain section, and should be used if the entire section is inappropriate for whatever reason- does that answer your question? J Milburn (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It's good that you're reverting vandalism and all, but calling them stupid in your edit summary is only going to encourage them. I suggest that you use the standard undo edit summary. Inferno, Lord of Penguins21:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, just because it's been going on for so-and-so long doesn't make it okay. Angry vandals tend to be worse than regular ones, so its better not to be name calling, Abce2|This isnot a test21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Mafia Family. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. (will add more in a minute)tedder (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, jlcoving, I'm the admin who just full-protected Black Mafia Family. I would have semi-protected it, but your anger in the edit summaries (example), and prodding on user talk pages (example) make it clear that protecting the article might help you settle down also. Please follow the rules at WP:3RR and pursue better ways of preventing this type of activity rather than going nuts on the article, okay?
Know that no matter who is "right", edit warring and other issues of incivility will result in blocks in the future.
In a second note, please reply on whatever talk page the discussion began on. So if you are going to reply to this, do it here, not on my talk page. That makes it easier for others to follow along. tedder (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know I should respond here. Again, I only recently started calling him an idiot and the people above I said I would just undo his revisions without making comment from now on. I don't see how I was "warring" by undoing his vandalism, but I accept what you say and I guess I won't do it in the future. I'm settled down now, if you notice all my recent edits were just updating the page. Now that an admin is involved I'm done with my conflict with him. It was just highly annoying, again if you look at the history I must have undid the exact same revision from him at LEAST 20 times.
As for me prodding him on his user page, I don't see how that is really hostile what I said but again I accept what you say. All I want to be able to do is work on the page without this guy constantly deleting the exact same section every single time, despite it's source, and with absolutely no explanation. I have a lot more stuff I'd like to add tonight, but I suppose I understand if you want to keep me blocked also.
jlcoving (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
jlcoving (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
ILOP, see my reply below- I don't think it's a clear exemption from 3RR due to the number of reverts, lack of obvious vandalism (they are POV edits), and Jlcoving's behavior in the edit summaries and user talk pages. However, this is water under the beaten horse- at this point, I think we can help Jlcoving with the "proper Wiki way" of doing things and give him the avenues to escalate this down if it happens in the future. tedder (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely it's important to stay civil and calm; I'm a law school student so I'm not exactly one who gets angry just because someone disagree's with me. In fact, I like disagreement because it's healthy and helps me develop my points better. The first 10-15 edits I was able to stay calm, but after that and no one was intervening I mean it's like...what am I supposed to do? This guy would only delete the "Daniel Corral" part and nothing else, without explanation despite its source. Again, now that an admin is involved I'm done with it and my blood pressure is back down under 200/150 (joke there). (Again, all I want to do is be able to edit this article that I've worked very hard on for around a year now.)jlcoving (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I completely understand, and the only reason I full-protected the page was to keep you from getting blocked. Undoing vandalism is one thing, but the rest of the behavior makes it look more like an edit war. It sounds like consensus is with you, it's just that there is a sockpuppet causing trouble.
Really, the fact you undid it "at least 20 times" isn't a good sign. You should have escalated the issue to WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:DR, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, or any of the other places that would have been willing to help out. Nobody wins an edit war like that, as the 20 reverts show.
In the long run, we'll make sure those sockpuppets aren't a big problem. In the short term, it's probably worth taking a deep breath, then come back in a more neutral frame of mind.
Oh- and indent your posts- there's a good overview of using talk pages at WP:TALK. Okay? We're on the same team, just take a deep breath :-) tedder (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies again, as I said I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia. I figured there was some sort of outlet to request help and whatnot but I just did not know what/where that was. Believe me I would have much rather of had the assistance I have now during the first 5 or so incidents of him doing the vandalism rather than constantly trying to look on here to see if he was messing up the page again or possibly even doing further vandalism than just that section. I understand we're on the same team, I've just been working all week on Tort law (fun, fun) and studying for a Contracts law test (super fun!) and all this going on at the same time just made me want to scream so to speak.
No worries. This doesn't go against your current record (even if there was such a thing!). Know you can and should seek help if this sort of thing gets going again and nobody else is around to see it. I can see why you'd scream after dealing with tort law and the b-law stuff- the goal is to keep wikipedia from turning into a battleground, but IPs with evil intents are always testing our patience with the seemingly one-sided policy of WP:AGF.
Oh- you aren't blocked from editing- you were warned that you might be blocked. The BMF page is currently locked against editing though, because it's an easy way to keep a situation from devolving. It's set to be locked for three days- I may be willing to lower it tomorrow, but I'm worried the other party will start going nuts again too. So what I'm saying is feel free to edit anything but the BMF page- even the talk page is fair game. tedder (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You asked "Can't that guy just be blocked from editing?" The answer is yes, sort of. It looks like the user is a sockpuppet- hopping around on IP addresses and user accounts. So there are multiple points that need to be stopped. Save your edits that were in progress, I'll set the expiration time to 24 hours so you can get back to it this time tomorrow. tedder (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why you undid my deletion; The arrest and testimony of Simms took place after the Flenory brothers plead guilty; Simms or any other testimony in Los Angeles and Atlanta had no bearing on the outcome of the brothers; Therefore, the reference to him as an informant that contributed to their conviction is not factually correct; Subha7 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see more inline citations - to support the various allegations. I'm sure that they're somewhere in the books you've cited, but where? Wikipedia has become quite touchy about the bios of living people, and I imagine drug traffickers would be one of the touchier areas. All detailed at Wikipedia:BLPJosh Parris21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
ITN for La Familia Michoacana (drug cartel)
On 25 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article La Familia Michoacana (drug cartel), which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Hey, I haven't been on lately, sorry. Is there still an issue with the sockpuppetry? If so, please let me know. I'm checking my talk page more frequently now, so I should be able to respond quickly. If the guy is still socking I'll help you get the hammer put down on them. Inferno, Lord of Penguins15:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Are the photographs you have added to the article under Informants in accordance with the Image use Policy and identiable person guidelines?Please explainSubha7 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Did Creative Loafing request them from the DEA? I'm not sure how they were made available;Is it as simple as just caling the DEA and make the request? Subha7 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tijuana Cartel
Hello. Regarding the Tijuana Cartel, please note that Luis Fernando Arellano Félix (Enedina's brother) and Luis Fernando Sánchez Arellano (Enedina's son and new cartel leader) are different individuals. I hope this resolves your question. Thanks, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I did the exact same mistake time ago when first working on these articles and template. Thank you for looking after its accuracy! See you around, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jlcoving. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
