User talk:Jxpics

Hello, Jxpics, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 04:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Jxpics, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jxpics! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Quiter (December 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

October 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - wolf 04:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Box wasn't resolving this way for me (browser problem?), which prevented previews & translated to bit-by-bit edits. Worked through them (grueling!) and got the article in better shape though. Thanks for your note! Jxpics (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edits

Hi. I don't understand what you're doing at the cyberwarfare article. Can you please explain why you are making edits one character at a time? Squeakachu (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is generating edits for editing half locked articles (above 500 edits).

Suggest to ban him due to vanadalism and abuse.

If you or others dont do it I try to do it tomorrow. Julius Senegal (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake of edit process on cyber warfare page, but kept at it until the net result was a superior article with academic sourcing. Jxpics (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Genuine attempt to improve the quality of article. Dismissing a person as a conspiracy theorist in their headline is unnecessarily libelous and suggests political motivation; attempted correction to neutrally state positions and criticisms. IE. calling Kennedy a conspiracy theorist and Trump an election denier is inflammatory and implies a pro-Biden bias. It is better and more rigorous to state their statements & criticisms. Jxpics (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nonsense. Yamla (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2023 (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.

October 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #80029

is closed. After reviewing this users edits and the unblock requests, I recommend a topic ban for post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, as an unblock condition.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]