User talk:Jjfun3695

Jjfun3695, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jjfun3695! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Hello, I'm FULBERT. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FULBERT (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in CBS This Morning, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Per the MoS, we do not generally use past tense to describe the existence of TV programs WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth II 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. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jjfun3695, welcome. Along with signing your posts, it's our convention on Wikipedia that new comments should be placed below older comments. If you continue posting your comments above others, they will likely not be seen by other editors who expect new comments at the bottom, or someone else may move your comment for you. If you want to read more information on our standard practices for talk pages, please see Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Thanks. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Carlo Acutis 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. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Barbados. General Ization ^Talk 02:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in President of the University of Notre Dame, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at University of Notre Dame. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 17:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Mother Angelica (September 1st 2021)

Hi. I am currently seeking to nominate Mother Angelica for Good Article status and I noticed that on September 1st of this year, you added material to the article which made specific claims about circumstances surrounding calls for her canonization. You didn't source these claims, and I am unable to find any proof of the information you posted. Per Wikipedia's rules on material without sources, you should know that material without sources or for which the sources are insufficient, can be removed at any time without warning. If you are certain of the information you posted on that article, could you please go back to the page and add sources to support your edit. Should the information remain unsourced, I will seek in consultation with other editors to the article, to remove it. Dane|Geld 14:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2022 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Limited Idea4me (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard discussion about your editing

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Persistent unsourced opinion and style guide issues. Thank you. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked for 1 day because of continued insertion of problematic and unsourced material (examples: [1][2]) despite a final warning regarding this issue [3]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding your behavior and that you are temporarily blocked, if you wish to contribute to that discussion you may add your comments here and I (or another person may) will copy your comments to the discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Greg Kelly, you may be blocked from editing. Schazjmd (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked for 3 days because of continued insertion of problematic and unsourced material (example: [4]) despite prior warnings and a block regarding this issue. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page.--Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jjfun3695 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize, I have seen the reason regarding edit on Rachel Campos-Duffy, I forgot to add the source, it was a mistake I apologize. Jjfun3695 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a one-time mistake. This has been going on for months now and you've been warned over and over and over again. What's the problem? I think the best plan here is to take this time while you are blocked to read and thoroughly understand WP:CITE and WP:RS and WP:BLP. It's likely any further block will be substantially longer. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NBC Olympic broadcasts

Please, do not add info about activists' calls to pull out of the Beijing Olympics. They are not reliably sourced and the entire idea of an official broadcaster doing that is unprecedented and highly unlikely to ever happen. Furthermore, the news about the Biden admin’s deliberations about possible boycott have no place on that page whatsoever, do not add that. Trackfan20 (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have a history of inserting problematic content to various articles. Just stop. Trackfan20 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2022 Winter Olympics, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima

Hello, Jjfun3695. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima

Hello, Jjfun3695. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Parish of Annunciation-Our Lady of Fatima".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics openers

Concerning people who'll open future Olympic Games? It's not a huge deal to me, whether we list them or not. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III Change

Your change to the Charles III representing picture on the House of Windsor page was not necessary. The picture you changed it to wasn't an official portrait nor photo, merely a photo published by the press. Standardly, there are only official portraits or photos on it, and the change to the funeral photo, he isn't looking at the camera, he looks sad, and it is unofficial. Thus, it will be changed back. For info, find my talk page.

BillClinternet (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use explanatory edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Bishonen | tålk 15:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note particularly that you didn't use edit summaries when you added content to Buckingham Palace here, nor when you reverted the removal of that content here (other than the automatically generated edit summary, which explains nothing). Your opponent, Firebrace, provided explanations for their reverts, and you should at the least have done the same. (Preferably, when your content was reverted, you should not have re-reverted at all, but opened a discussion on talk.) Bishonen | tålk 15:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

And again, and again, and again. You really need to get this sorted out, please. You are being given good advice, but ignoring it – please please don't. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Windsor. 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) 06:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francoist Spain. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]