User talk:JazzClam

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

News
Test
April 2020 - November 2020

Your thread has been archived

Hi JazzClam! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to label sections, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I have said in my talk page that I do not have adequate proficiency in English. The reason is that I did not get adequate or ideal schooling of the language.I have taught English myself through watching Hollywood films. For some reasons, I however love to edit the English one. Thanks for guiding me. Ppt2003 (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppt2003: That's all right, It's what we editors do! If you have any questions regarding wikipedia or need any help, feel free to ask me or the teahouse! JazzClam (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Can I trout myself? JazzClam (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yup

May 2020

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Aseprite, from its old location at User:JazzClam/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. KylieTastic (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aseprite (May 24)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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. 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:

Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to show notability

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aseprite and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aseprite, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JazzClam! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aseprite (May 26)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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. 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.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Aseprite and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Aseprite, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

PrussianOwl (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: Thanks! I assumed my infobox contributions didn't need much of an edit summary as I thought they were quite self explanatory, I also didn't really know what to write xD. But thanks for the reminder! JazzClam (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Bagumba. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Killing of George Floyd, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You'll need to establish consensus that World Tribune is a reliable source. There was a prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#World_Tribune —Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Thanks, Bagumba, I had not realized the world tribune was an unreliable source, I replaced it with NPR, (Which I'm pretty damn sure is reliable), and also added a little bit more. JazzClam (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR source didn't support your text about the nature of the fentanyl dose. I also don't think this "dispute" is notable enough to be in the lead. Feel free to establish consensus on the article's talk page. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Killing of George Floyd. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Postal voting in the United States

Your recent editing history 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans Listen, the article has some serious NPOV issues in it, and my most recent edit, in "Unequal Signature Rejection rates" just specifies a reason why many people believe there are higher rejection rates amongst young and minority voters, I cited my sources, all four of em' and I made sure everything was ship shape. Could you please tell me why you believe I am in an "Edit War?"

Ark Encounter

On Wikipedia we unambiguously specify when a practice is pseudoscience and adjust the weight of articles according to the mainstream and scientific views of relevant experts in the field, supported with reliable sources (WP:RS). Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware of how the ANI thread you started is going. You will need to convince the community that you can edit constructively and non disruptively. Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been banned from editing post-1932 American politics articles.

You have been sanctioned by unanimous decision reached at the WP:ANI#NorthBySouthBaranof case you had filed.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sebastian 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Since the community decided your topic ban, you have continued to make edits related to post-1932 American politics, such as to the articles

Park51 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch and
Operation Enduring Freedom (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

Please be aware that such edits are violations of the ban, even if, as was the case for most of them, they are uncontroversial. Because you may not have been aware of that, I will assume good faith and just leave it at this friendly reminder this time. But please understand that a ban is a serious matter, it means that you could get blocked even for such edits. I therefore recommend you to take any articles that might tempt you to further violate the topic ban off your watchlist. ◅ Sebastian 10:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JazzClam. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 00:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JazzClam. I have closed the AE request. You may refer to my closing summary for details. Please do not hesitate to query me about the ban at any time. El_C 00:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C's close is 100% correct, but I'll elaborate on it just a bit, because I think the status of your ban was never clearly and accurately implemented and explained to you, and that's not your fault, and we're essentially giving you a free pass here because of that. However, I don't want to see confusion about this ban ever again, so I'm going to formally explain it to you just so we can never be unsure of whether you understand the situation going forward. Your editing restriction is as follows: Pursuant to a unanimous community consensus here, you are, and have been, indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. This applies to making any edit, or editing any page relating to the subject area. While we've given you a break here in favor of clarifying this one final time, we have not overlooked the fact that you were notified of a ban from such articles specifically, and you have violated that ban as it was explained to you multiple times, including after a warning. Make no mistake, you are now on a zero-tolerance, final warning status, and any violation, no matter how minor, no matter how vague, is going to be met with a lengthy block. This topic ban is formally logged on the record at WP:EDRC and should be considered effective as of today. If you have any questions, you're welcome to follow up with me as well. Note that neither El_C nor myself are the ones who have sanctioned you, this sanction was imposed by the community back in November, we're just making sure you understand the situation to the best of our abilities. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]