User talk:Jccali1214

Welcome!

Hello, Jccali1214, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as File:Zahra Burton.jpg, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Whpq (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Zahra Burton.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Zahra Burton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for political endorsements

Hi Jccali1214. Please be aware that any political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:

The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

This is covered by the consensus at WP:ERFC.

For that reason, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, poker websites, and blogs are not acceptable sources. Also, donating to a campaign or showing up to a campaign rally are not endorsements. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Mr X 🖋 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren Endorsements

there's also a lot of people on twitter that endorse Elizabeth Warren too, like Joss Whedon, Micah Wright, Chris Nee, among others, so could you help with the Elizabeth Warren Endorsement page too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.10.206 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to! As the above person noted, twitter is apparently not enough to constitute an endorsement so I'll look out for articles and such that corroborate the endorsements. Thanks again. Jccali1214 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

209.122.10.206 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)== Endorsements ==[reply]

This is not an endorsement. Please use reliable, independent sources. Donations are not endorsements. In fact, if it doesn't say "endorsement" it probably isn't. If you have doubts, please use the talk page. Continuing to add poorly sourced material, especially involving living people, can result in being blocked from editing.- Mr X 20:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the threat of being blocked @MrX:. My logic is two-fold - while a tweet with a clear identification of an endorsement itself may not be sufficient per Wikipedia standards for some odd reason (when other pages permit it), a tweet in conjunction with donations is corroborating evidence. My logic on the latter is that we cite sources that have also cited FEC data and I only include endorsers that have exclusively given to the candidate; requiring only independent sources when the media often doesn't cover each endorser the same way or at all privileges certain kind of endorsers so we should absolutely have an equity perspective when doing these edits. I take the integrity of the page seriously and I actually look for corroborating sources, as you can see in my contribution history. I would encourage you to do the same. Thank you Jccali1214 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your logic does not overrule the very clear criteria that have consensus. Just don't use Twitter or any other primary source, and don't confuse donations with endorsements. This is a collaborative project. You can't just do whatever you like while ignoring guidelines that have been agreed on by multiple editors. - Mr X 🖋 19:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert other editors without explaining why in an edit summary, as you did to re-add Ali Milani. The source cited says: He has a natural touch with voters, and was joined by a disparate group of activists, from an American retiree and Bernie Sanders fan ... In the same way that the source does not say that Milani is an American retiree, it does not say that Milani endorses Sanders in 2020. Note that the three criteria from WP:ENDORSERFC which you have already been told about above are not met here.

You comment above: while a tweet with a clear identification of an endorsement itself may not be sufficient per Wikipedia standards for some odd reason (when other pages permit it). Rules on Wikipedia are decided by consensus and we now have consensus to enforce the three criteria listed at WP:ENDORSERFC, a decision made in December. Many editors are not aware of these rules and many are not abiding by them, and of course much content was written by these rules were established. This is why other pages violate the rules. If you want to improve endorsement pages by removing entries which don't meet the three criteria, or finding sources so that they do meet these criteria, then this would be really helpful. What is not helpful is ignoring the three criteria and continuing to add entries which fail them, because your contributions will be undone, a waste of everyone's time. — Bilorv (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining this, you have explained in this in a way that has helped. I am still new to this and trying to get the hang of it, not trying to be attacked for creating a valid, legitimate record on all the pages that are edited, as a further consideration of equity and inclusion should continue to be made. Though, still not sure why other pages accept social media posts. I assume it's just cause it's at the presidential level... Jccali1214 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read WP:ENDORSERFC to see how the community came to the decision it did. As I hinted at, many political pages have very bad sourcing and this is something that we need to improve. Feel free to help us. I assume you're referring to Trump's twitter usage. His tweets are sometimes reliable in terms of reporting what he has said, and reliable for nothing else, though in almost all cases we should be using secondary sources instead of linking to his tweets directly. I appreciate the edits you've been making and I too am still learning more nuance about the situation here: for instance, I have only just realised that the three criteria only apply to reporting endorsements of individuals, and for organizations there was only consensus that they must meet the first and third criterion (so my edit here was incorrect). — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't even aware of that until you brought it to my attention Bilorv! Thank you, I appreciate the kind and constructive way of conveying this information to me, much more hopeful than other editors. And Lololol I was not referring to Tr*mp, I was referring to other pages with endorsements, like congressional races, that have social media sources but it seems you've answered that question. Thanks again and happy editing! Glad to be on this adventure together Jccali1214 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to still be struggling with understanding our sourcing requirements, this edit by you does not meet the guidelines for endorsements, which by now you should understand. YouTube is not a reliable source. Please stop using it. The Twin Cities Pioneer Press does not say anything about Brother Ali endorsing Sanders. Your continued use of these types of sources is disruptive. If you need to, ask on the article talk page before adding endorsements. If the "endorsement" doesn't say endorsement and if it is not published in a newspaper, magazine, or news website, you should ask first. - Mr X 🖋 00:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to have a condescending and combative manner when addressing me. I can say the same thing about your edits of people who have clearly endorsed the candidate, even if they are from a source that is deemed invalid. I would appreciate if you did a cursory search to verify if there is no valid source for the endorsers, because just taking an ax to an article is easy but doesn't preserve the integrity of the record. I will take you suggestion of checking on the talk page, but there are plenty of valid sources that have documented and corroborate the sources, such as a new site on Youtube or playing at a campaign rally. I don't have the same level of experience, context, or background as you so please don't try to project mal-intent on the editing that I do. So happy editing and please let's be respectful. Jccali1214 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

The content I'm removing includes blatant personal attacks regarding editors. Do not restore it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERFC

Hi Jccali1214. You seem intent on ignoring the consensus established in WP:ERFC as demonstrated in these edits. I have tried to help you understand how this policy applies, but you continue to do what you please. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. If you continue to flaunt policy, I'm going to ask for your conduct to be examined at an administrator noticeboard. - Mr X 🖋 17:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, what policy am I flaunting. I specifically cited the need for consensus about the DNC endorsers in my edit. Other pages for democratic candidates still maintain the DNC exception annotation and the non-notable endorsers. We either need to have a consistent consensus that we REMOVE them from ALL pages or KEEP them on ALL pages. I see you like to project a lot because as noted in my edit, YOU X seem to have plenty of prejudice in your edits and attacking me> SO if you want to go to the administrator board, I'd be happy to. I am trying to do these edits judiciously and in line with community standards; but I will not tolerate threats. Thank you.Jccali1214 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I hinted above, WP:CONSENSUS is the policy that have been flaunting. The RfC established the consensus that you have been editing against. In other words, we have consensus for removing the DNC member exceptions because it is directly contrary to criterion 1. I have removed these entries from several campaign articles, and any help removing them ones I've missed would be appreciated.

It would be great if you would respect these guidelines that have been adopted by the community. I have made polite requests and patiently explained why your personal preference does not supersede a community-wide consensus. If you keep doing what you want anyway, then what choice do I have but to ask for enforcement? - Mr X 🖋 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

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.

- Mr X 🖋 17:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Young Democrats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antemasque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text additions

Hello! With this edit you added back lots of text that was just removed from the article. Do you mind removing these claims since there's now a standalone article about the pandemic in Georgia? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I removed the claims real quick, just be careful next time! Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the issue was resolved but I never edited the Georgia page so not to sure what you're talking about to be honest... Jccali1214 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jccali1214, Sorry for any confusion, I included a link in my first reply, but was referring to content about Georgia at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]