User talk:Jontel/Archives/2019/March
One of your previous edits contained information that has previously resulted in a copyright violation. If you think any of your other additions are copyrighted then please remove it. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Freedom for Humanity Facebook exchange.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Freedom for Humanity Facebook exchange.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies
[edit]I accidentally reverted your edit. Mea culpa. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thanks for letting me know. Yes, I thought that might be it. Jontel (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's some serious issues on that page with system gaming to produce an idealised partisan viewpoint... I appreciate your efforts to improve it.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thanks for that. Yes, I can see emotions run deep. I thought your examples added a real life dimension that wan't there before. Jontel (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Re note on my page
[edit]I've answered here.Cheers Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
1RR
[edit]You broke 1rr with diff kindly self revert. As a side note - challenging published academic sources (whose subject is the article) on the basis of your personal WP:OR is not a good look.Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
In particular, this edit, in contravention to Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC.13 Howard Jacobson is against an established RfC consensus. Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: I am sorry you think my edits are unconstructive. I have been trying to make articles more useful, balanced and readable. I regret that you prefer mass reverts instead of engaging with changes. As per your advice above, you can raise issues with my edits with me or on the talk page. Why are you not taking your own advice? I admit I had not read all the talk archives but now have. I will use the talk page more for pre-discussing significant edits. Jontel (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring specifically to the edit against the RfC consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Constructive Editing
[edit]Just a note to say thank you for your ongoing work to improve the quality, accuracy and sources of articles. ~ BOD ~ TALK 23:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:The Lobby (2017 film) has a new comment
[edit]