User talk:Jamdud22

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're going to tag Alex Jones for POV, you are going to need to spell out some details in the talk page. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: the edit warring continues. See users edit summaries as well EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for edits involving living persons

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

Doug Weller talk 16:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV notices need specific detatils on talk pages

And these must refer to specifics of the actual policy as a lot of editors use the acronym without understanding it. You've been told this before, if you continue to do this you can be blocked for disruptive editing. I see you've already been reverted at Alex Jones. Doug Weller talk 06:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which editor of Alex Jones were you calling the author?

There have been about 3000 editors there so your edit summary is confusing. Doug Weller talk 06:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Blablubbs. I noticed that in this edit to John N. Mitchell, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]