DanJazzy

Welcome!

Hello, DanJazzy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Honorific nicknames in popular music, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your DRN request

When you open a request at DRN you need to notify the other editors involved by placing {{subst:drn-notice}} ~~~~ on their user talk page. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have done as you requested but another of your editors User:TransporterMan has rejected my request. The same editor rejected my request or mediation. I am now at my wits end and do not know what to do as the editors at the talk page have completely refused to engage me or attempt a compromise on an issue I feel is very important.DanJazzy (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I see you are very new here. I understand that things can be confusing and a little frustrating at the beginning. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that means that we have developed rules and policies to keep everything from being chaotic. From what I read of your DRN request you want to make changes to sourced material based on your opinion or the un-documented opinion of 'experts'. We do not do that here. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say about a subject not what we know or feel is true. Here is a brief essay I wrote for people who have not quite gotten used to how our policies work:

• Common policy misunderstandings
  

This also gives links to the full policies. If you want to make a change to an article you must find reliable sources that support the additions or changes you want to make. I know nothing about jazz or the article you wanted to edit so I can offer no specific advice. What I will say is take some time to learn our policies and guidelines. Mediation and Dispute Resolution are not a way to force changes at an article, only consensus among editors can do that. Again, welcome to Wikipedia if you have more questions on our policies and guidelines or editing here in general please feel free to contact me. Jbh (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If you go to the talk page under question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Honorific_nicknames_in_popular_music, you will see that I supported my argument with credible sources. How does one achieve consensus when the other editors on the talk page totally refuse to engage? This fact was noted by User:TransporterMan DanJazzy (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kenny G

I have undid most of your edits on the Kenny G article. Kenny G's genre is a source of contention, but consensus here at Wikipedia was to leave him categorized as smooth jazz. I don't even consider adult contemporary to be a genre; it is really more of a radio format.

Also, I have deleted the criticism section, as it is an unnecessary POV fork. The criticism that he received from Pat Metheny should only be mentioned in the career section. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a departure from Wikipedia policy. There was no such consensus in the talk pages. Your second reversal is also against policy. All biographies here contain a criticism section. I don't see why this particular artist merits special treatment. I am reversing your subjective decisions.DanJazzy (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I have reverted your edits again. Per WP:RS, Kenny G is considered a smooth jazz musician. Also, the criticism section gives undue weight to his musical criticism (read WP:UNDUE). ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 04:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You're being a disruptive editor. The proper procedure if you want to make changes is to discuss it in the talk pages and obtain consensus.

1. If you look at the talk pages, it is evident that there is no consensus for Kenny G being a smooth jazz artist.

2. The consensus for the criticism section is evident, as it is in line with Wikipedia policy on biographies. Again, conforming to policy, the section is supported by relevant citations. I have reversed your changes.DanJazzy (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 16:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Twerking without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Doniago I have removed your assertion that twerking dance originated from Greece. This is because the source you listed provides no evidence of this claim.DanJazzy (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't information I originally added or even necessarily support. My concern was that you removed it without providing any explanation as to why you were doing so. In any case, it's been re-removed by another editor with a satisfactory rationale. Happy editing. DonIago (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coco. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated edit on African Americans

Hello. Please stop your repeated edits with an undiscussed and unexplained major rewrite of the article, including massive removal of sourced content. Your addition of a gallery in the infobox also violates consensus at Wiki project Ethnic groups. Take your changes to the talk page of the article, and get consensus for them (minus the gallery), before making the edit again. Thank you. Thomas.W ^talk 17:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus at Wiki Project Ethnic groups, about there being no images of people in the infobox, applies to all articles about ethnic groups, and overrides the previous local consensus on African Americans. Thomas.W ^talk 18:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your so called "rule" is not recognised Wikipedia policy and appears to be ad-hoc re writing of the rules-This is not acceptable.

It also appears rather dodgy as it only affects African Americans. The pages for this [1] and this ethnic groups are liberally littered with imagery.

What is going on here?DanJazzy (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The galleries have been removed from most articles about ethnic groups, and will be removed from the rest sooner or later. Thomas.W ^talk 18:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds dodgy. I've trawled through quite a bit of ethnic related articles and the African American one is disproportionately affected. Is it really possible to have an article about African Americans and not include the 36 individuals I had put in the infobox?

You also haven't addressed the main issue: your fishy infobox "rule" is a made up regulation and has no basis in Wikipedia policy.DanJazzy (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The gallery is a minor problem compared to the rest of your edit. Comment on that instead. Thomas.W ^talk 19:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. The visuals are as important as the text in any Wikipedia article. It is extremely dishonest to have an article about African Americans and not have imagery while for other ethnic groups they are all over the articleDanJazzy (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at African Americans shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W ^talk 18:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly not privy to the consensus at the articles's talk page. (Please see WP:RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African_Americans) You are in major violation here.DanJazzy (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't you read the messages you get? As I wrote in the section above this one the consensus at Wiki project Ethnic groups overrides the local consensus at African Americans, which is why the gallery had been removed and can't be added back again. But the gallery is only one part of the problem, an even bigger part of it is your undiscussed and unexplained removal of sourced content from the article. Thomas.W ^talk 18:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Care to highlight the alleged "undiscussed and unexplained removal of sourced content from the article?"DanJazzy (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's all in this diff. You shuffled text around and added a gallery with 37 imagelinks, which would normally result in an increase in size of the article, yet the article is 5,374 bytes smaller after your edit than it was before it. And the reason for that is that you also removed text, both small snippets of text here and there and whole sections. And some of your changes are pure POV, such as changing "The average high school graduation rate of blacks in the United States has steadily increased to 71% in 2013" to "The average graduation rate of blacks in the United States is 52%", while removing the source for the 71%. And there are several other changes in your edit that definitely need support on the talk page before being made. I'd even go as far as saying that it's pure POV-pushing. Thomas.W ^talk 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an outright lie. The only change I did was add 36 images of prominent African Americans. I justified this inclusion. This is evident in the edit history. Granted, this was 16 more images than the consensus agreed in the talk pages. But that's a lesser transgression compared to an outright fibbing editorDanJazzy (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The diffs say otherwise, and the diffs do not lie. These are your three edits, with the oldest one first: #1, #2, #3. Three identical edits, with lots of POV changes. All edits made here on Wikipedia are saved to history, and can be checked, so there's no point in even trying to deny it. Thomas.W ^talk 19:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

We are going round in circles here. The most important issue before the floor is that you and a small clique of editors are applying mickey mouse made up "rules" in the African American article on Wikipedia. There is no Wiki policy that states that there should NOT be imagery on an article about ethnic groups. None at all. This is not acceptable. I will take up further measures including writing formally to Wikipedia on this very serious and deliberate violation of policy. I presume the general public will also not be too amused by this disproportionate targeting of a particular ethnic group on Wikipedia-using fake, made up rules.DanJazzy (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a bunch of nonsense. The gallery is a minor content issue, but the POV-pushing, like the example I gave a couple of notches up in this thread where sourced content and the source for it was replaced with an unsourced claim, removing whole sections of sourced content etc etc is a serious thing. And I have no intention of letting you off the hook, no matter how hard you try to change subject. Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, go ahead and don't let me "off the hook" whatever that means. As for me, something is very clear here; the zealousness in deleting imagery of prominent African Americans from their own article is discriminatory and absurd. Every other ethnic group-including Italians, Hispanic and Latino Americans..you name it...are literally saturated with imagery of prominent members of that group.It is logical for me, therefore, to seek outside intervention on this matter. How is it possible for a small clique of Wiki editors to make up the rules as they go along? This is damaging to the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia. It is an exclusive and discriminatory practice by its very nature. It is simply unacceptable.DanJazzy (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You obviously still don't understand that the biggest problem with your repeatedly made edit isn't the gallery but the rest of it, as I pointed out already in the edit summary of my first revert: "Rv unexplained and undiscussed major rewrite of article, removing large chunks of sourced content". That's the main reason you were reverted, not the gallery. Even though that, strictly speaking, is wrong too. (If you seriously don't know what "letting someone off the hook" means you can find an explanation here:Etymology 1. Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Then revert only the text in contention, simple. In fact I have absolutely no interest in that issue. However, why would you delete perfectly legitimate imagery? You know very well that Wikipedia policy allows imagery on infobox. It is as simple as that.DanJazzy (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please explain

Hi, DanJazzy. User:Thomas.W has appealed to me w r t your disagreement. I'm non-plussed to see above that you deny removing sourced content in this diff as well as the two preceding identical diffs, even calling it "an outright lie". Did you look at the diff when Thomas referred to it? All the way down? Might there be something wrong with the device you edit from? Though the removals don't seem to me to be of a kind that could be done accidentally. And it's obviously extremely frustrating for the other user when you refuse to acknowledge or even hear the major part of his complaint. Please explain, and please take this as a warning from an administrator. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

Let me clarify:

1. I added 36 images of prominent African Americans to the infobox of the relevant article. You both know as well as I do that there is no policy on Wikipedia against posting images on an article's infobox. Indeed, the attempted promulgation of such a policy at [2] failed as it did not arrive at any consensus.

2. I did not attempt to change any other text as alleged. Indeed, the alleged removal does not make sense to me because I do not dispute the earlier text at all, and I was unaware of any such reversion, in any case. However, if you go back to the earlier discussion with User:Thomas.W you'll realise his main bone of contention was the imagery I had added to the infobox. I clearly explained to him that it is perfectly legitimate to include said images as per Wiki policy. He proceeded to revert the IMAGERY twice. The later allegations on text reversion only surfaced after it became clear that there was no basis for removal of the images I had inserted.

3. Now, my question is this; what happens to Wikipedia's credibility when a few editors congregate to arbitrary alter policy? Is that an inclusive process? It clearly violates WP:CONS and WP:NDP when such illegal "rules" are disproportionally applied to some articles and not others.

4. It is very important to realize that all of us want the Wiki project to succeed. It is also extremely important to cultivate a sense of inclusiveness as this is a global process. (WP:OWN) We are editing this encyclopaedia to improve it and enhance the credibility of the articles. Such "sharp" practice undermines this process.DanJazzy (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sharp practice? Please don't try shenanigans and fine oratory with me. Are you actually unable to read the diff that both Thomas and I have linked to, and which shows a lot of textual changes? If you are, why? Here it is again: [3] The diff shows a lot of text being removed or shortened piecemeal. (You call that the "alleged removal".) It's not true that Thomas' "main bone of contention" was the imagery you had added to the infobox. I count five times that Thomas assures you above that his main concern is your removal of text: Here, here, here, here, and here. You evade that every time, insisting instead that "the most important issue before the floor"(!) is the images. You have much to say about the removal of the images, including accusations of racism and threats to let "the general public" know about it. Now, Thomas considers your removals tendentious; for my part I suspect the reason you made changes such as "The average high school graduation rate of blacks in the United States has steadily increased to 71% in 2013" to "The average graduation rate of blacks in the United States is 52%" — just one of many examples — was that, unintentionally, you went back to, and then accidentally saved, an older, shorter version of the article. I'm not inclined to dig for what that older version might have been (especially considering that you won't even take the trouble to read the diffs before your eyes), but that's what I think probably happened. I don't believe you deliberately made tendentious changes. But I'm very, very surprised that you would turn your head away from the evidence and insist you didn't make the changes at all. Please edit more carefully, look at what you save before you save it, and be prepared to listen to other voices than your own. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC).

What is the problem with appealing to the general public? Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? Are you insisting that our work should be done in the shadows, away from prying eyes? We cannot continue like this: a group of less than 20 editors determining what global knowledge should entail.The issues on the floor are a perfect example.We are here obfuscating over an alleged edit which even you finally acknowledge is an irrelevant issue. Yet, the bigger picture is that a literally deprived Black kid looking at the African American page sees a bland, text filled article. He doesn't know half his history because it is completely whitewashed and there is no reprieve in Wikipedia or anywhere else. When I was in the USA, I talked to many Black kids who had no idea who Louis Armstrong, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Chuck Berry are.Such ignorance is very lamentable and inexcusable. The system has failed them completely. It is sad that such failures appear to to be institutionalized, even at Wikipedia. We must do all we can to encourage these kids to have a sense of self worth and self confidence. What is wrong with the pictures in the article? It is fine by Wikipedia rules but apparently not good enough for an exclusive clique of editors.DanJazzy (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That may be your floor. Mine is that you reverted to a four-month old version of the article, thereby wiping out the more than 200 edits that have been made to the it since September 2015 — yes, Thomas has discovered which version you reverted to — and that you close your eyes so hard when asked to look at the evidence. I would show you a diff demonstrating exactly what happened if I thought you'd care. (If against all likelihood you do, you can see it in this discussion on my page.) This has been an interesting experience. I hope the kind of evasion and tap-dancing around a mistake you made (still with the "alleged" edit…!) isn't habitual with you, and with that I leave you. (P.S. Do you have some principled objection to the standard indentation of threaded discussion?) Bishonen | talk 09:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

"Tap dancing"...really? This discussion is going round in circles and smacks of WP:HUNT My point remains that the pictures should remain. That was the consensus in the article's talk page here[4] It's as simple as that.DanJazzy (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Other editors reviewing this might like to note that an inability to read their own diffs or admit what they contain is par for the course for DanJazzy. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The same editors might also like to note that defamatory and personal attacks are the stock in trade of Pinkbeast.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Your filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard was very malformed, but I have cleaned it up for you. Please see my comments there. I would prefer that discussion at the noticeboard be preceded by discussion on the article talk page rather than your user talk page. Also, you must notify the other editors, which you have not yet done. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Jazz article

My revert of your edit at jazz was because you hadn't given the full source. I've now added it, based on the info that you gave. Writing it in the edit summary is not enough: it needs to be in the article itself. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources if you're not sure of anything about it. EddieHugh (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you EddieHugh (talk) much appreciated.--DanJazzy (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Weeknd page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Honorific nicknames in popular music ‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Umair Aj (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're an interested party to this dispute and yet you are also a Wikipedia administrator? Interesting. It appears that you are determined to alter the Honorific nicknames in popular music ‎ page to suit your preferred content through  Wikipedia administrative privileges. This is corruption. I shall be reporting this.DanJazzy (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am only trying to make you understand that you are engaged in edit war which is against the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. For images there are no set rules and their surnames vary from country to country. Please assume good faith. Umair Aj (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It is impossible to assume good faith when you're threatening me. To add to that, you're abusing your Wikipedia Administrator privileges (i.e. if you're an Administrator, which I doubt). According to Wikipedia:Administrators.....Administrators must never use (their tools) to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved......Bold text You're therefore in violation of Wikipedia rules. I shall report this.DanJazzy (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Again your aggression is miss-leading you. You have a history of edit war and I am only asking you to assume good faith. I will definitely stop you from disruptive editing and it is your right to report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Umair Aj (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You're clearly engaged in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, You're also impersonating an Administrator and using threats against me, a Wikipedia user. This is corruption and has been reported.DanJazzy (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You must report when ever you want and remember when one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages. If mere discussion fails to resolve a problem, look into dispute resolution.Umair Aj (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Note - Umair Aj isn't on the list of Administrators. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the information. Exemplo347 (talk)So why is Umair Aj sending administrative threats to my talk page?DanJazzy (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not really administrator-related. It's just a standard template that any editor who uses Twinkle can add to a user's page. Frankly, adding this to your page was a bit hypocritical but never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Friendly note about 3rr

Just want to inform you about the policy known as WP:3RR. You have reverted the article Tupac Shakur three times today. Such behavior is known as edit warring. You must not revert a fourth time, as that is the brightline that if crossed, will lead to sanctions. LK (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable conduct by an editor. You are threatening me with "sanctions" because of an article where you are an interested party? This is unethical behaviour. It will not go unchallenged.--DanJazzy (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you, I'm informing you of policy. I hope you can see the difference. If you revert again, and an admin notices, you may be blocked (temporarily) from editing. You're not supposed to keep on reverting to one single preferred version. That's not how wikipedia works. You should work with the other person's edits, not keep on going backwards. See WP:Edit warring and WP:Reverting. LK (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The one rule I'm aware of in Wikipedia is that no editor has the right to delete referenced material. Point No. 2: if you have an issue with the article take it to the talk page first for debate before you make any changes. You're are in contravention of these rules. If I hadn't called you out on it, you probably would have gotten away with it too. FYI, I don't care for your hollow threats, you have no authority to effect any sanctions. If you keep breaking Wikipedia rules, I'll certainly reverse your erroneous edits, no qualms about that.--DanJazzy (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are only aware of that 'rule', you really need to educate yourself more about Wikipedia policy and guidelines, as your understanding is incorrect. Your understanding that "no editor has the right to delete referenced material" is not correct, in fact, quite the opposite. Just because something is referenced doesn't mean it should be in an article. Rather, one needs to consider the various content guidelines to judge whether something should be in an article or not. I believe you may be thinking of the policy WP:V which states that if something is not reliably sourced, it should be removed.

Also, you should really pay attention to 3rr. WP:3RR is not a "hollow threat". If you break 3rr, you will be blocked from editing. LK (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to belabour the point, but I really do not care for your empty threats. Your role as an editor does not give you the right to shove your personal opinion down people's throats. I shall continue to reverse erroneous edits or those made in bad faith. Rest assured about that. I sense a palpable agenda here and that cannot run. Not in Wikipedia.--DanJazzy (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Civility. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Perhaps you could redirect it to the appropriate party.DanJazzy (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

João de Sá Panasco

I don't understand your revert on the article in question. I've pointed out the cited source (Bethancourt 2014, page 90) does, indeed, mention that João de Sá was the butt of racist jokes about his "disgusting smell" (quoting verbatim: "In the main collection of anecdotes recorded during that period, around sixty concerned black and mulatto people. João de Sá is the protagonist in many of them, receiving constant racist abuse about his skin colour, "disgusting" smell, and supposed incompatibility with a white morisca to who he had been married."). That said, I ask you to revert your last edit, to prevent us from engaging in an edit war. -- RickMorais (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Professor Bethencourt has qualified the phrase in context, meaning those were not his words but those of João de Sá's tormentors. There is therefore no evidence of this "disgusting smell" and this misinterpreted phrase should not be included in a scholarly article. I'm sure Prof. Bethencourt himself would find it appalling that his quotation of racists is being used in Wikipedia to validate racism.--DanJazzy (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not a validation of racism, and the phrase was similarly qualified in context in the Wikipedia article. Far from validating racism, it is an effort not to sanitise racist remarks and to pretend they never happened. -- RickMorais (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. On the contrary, it is my understanding that what was cited were in fact the words of medieval racists and not those of a refined academic. There is therefore no need to include these remarks and attempt to present them as fact. It is akin to citing antisemitic quotes from Mein Kampf on an article about Judaism.It would be technically feasible but morally reprehensible. In my considered opinion, we should not give undue weight to the opinion of racists. This might bring Wikipedia's (not to mention the quoted academic's) credibility into disrepute.--DanJazzy (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is about the constant racist abuse João de Sá received while a courtier; it is unattainable to address racism without characterizing it. Using your example, the article Antisemitism is full of questionable remarks that are not presented as fact, and which are attributed to specific people (case in point, as soon as I opened the article, I came across a quote by Goebbels that said Jews were parasites); this case is no different, and the derogatory remarks about João de Sá are attributed to members of the court of King John III of Portugal, not ourselves, not anyone in academia, and certainly not meant to be presented as fact (if the issue is one of phrasing, that can be easily addressed, of course). One certainly cannot be accused of giving undue weight to the opinion of racists, when one is talking about the opinion of racists. -- RickMorais (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The entire article in fact gives undue weight to the narrow minded opinions of medieval racists. Right from the first sentence. Is it your assertion that the subject's notability is mostly due to the racist abuse he received? At first glance, there's very little for the casual reader to know that João de Sá was a nobleman in the Portuguese court. His entry into a prestigious Portuguese order is relegated to the very last sentence. [WP:NPOV|Neutral Point of View]] says that articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.DanJazzy (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This argument, ridiculous as it is, would be better made at the article's talk page. (Or not at all, given the typical miscomprehension of policy it involves.) Pinkbeast (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Pinkbeast. Healthy, divergent debate is a pillar of Wikipedia.--DanJazzy (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DanJazzy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong lede

Hi DanJazzy:

You wrote in your edit summary, "The deleted paragraph is repeated verbatim in the articles' "early life" section. Moreover, the subject appears to e the only musician on Wikipedia whose entire life history is written in the lede article ins..."

Perhaps you would like to re-think this. Your first claim is demonstrably false. The paragraph you deleted was a summary of about four or five paragraphs from the Early life section. If it had been verbatim, that lede text of his early life would have been about four or five paragraphs long. Second, this paragraph did not contain Armstrong's "entire life history." So your second claim is a gross exaggeration.

Louis Armstrong is a central figure in the history of jazz and an important figure in American history. The article needs improvement. Maybe the paragraph in question is too long and perhaps the lede section overemphasizes his early life. However, your edit was rash and you provided no initial justification. The second time you provided an edit summary, but one based on two false claims. That is why I will be reverting your edit a second time, which will make this the third edit reversion. Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule

I hope we will both move past this, because the Wikipedia needs editors with knowledge and passion about jazz. The Louis Armstrong article needs much attention and I hope you will be a part of its improvement. This week I plan to start editing the section on his early career; that is, after I re-read some material on the subject. Maybe you can follow my edits and make sure I don't make any mistakes. sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I get your point, but why is Louis Armstrong singled out for special treatment in this regard? I haven't seen any other musician's bio where their early lives are overemphasised in the lede. Plus where are the references to his mother being a prostitute? I haven't seen any and as a first step I'm deleting that.DanJazzy (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You would help your case for your own edits if you would write accurate and helpful edit summaries. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you recently removed content from Louis Armstrong without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the relevant edit summary is available here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louis_Armstrong&action=history. The text is not supported by accurate citations. In fact, the "citations" are actually dead links.--DanJazzy (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/meghan-markle-prince-harry-engaged-royal-wedding-mixed-race-black-princess-british-monarchy-history-a8079251.html or elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Origin of Spirituals music.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 February 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 10:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Origin of Spirituals music., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Copyright probem at Spiritual (music)

See Diannaa's note above; also see WP:COPYVIO. Cutting and pasting text into Wikipedia from copyrighted sources, or close paraphrasing of same, is not permitted in Wikipedia. Ewulp (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll reword the text. Thanks. You may also note that the previous issue you referred to was amicably resolved [5]--DanJazzy (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Other Stuff Exists

You may want to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia concept of other stuff exists, as many of your arguments seem to hinge on it, and it's considered an invalid argument on Wikipedia. When someone cites a policy/guideline/manual of style point to you, you giving an example of a time where the rules werent being followed isn't a valid reason to ignore the rules. It just means you've identified another issue that needs to be fixed. Please take this to heart, as this approach will not convince people in discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Final warning

Final warning, to make things perfectly clear here:

1. Do not act against MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Only add images where there is text describing the image in question.
2. Do not edit against consensus, or continue to make changes when multiple editors oppose your edits. This is considered disruptive.

This is all very straightforward and cut and dry. Your images aren't bad, they just need to be moved slightly in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 05:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

With reference to [6], I would encourage the following:

1. Do not be uncivil in your tone in a discussion with another editor.

2. Do not threaten another editor , simply for having a different point of view.

3. Do not invent policy to suit a particular article.

4. Do not offer exclusive, biased and subjective interpretation of Wikipedia rules/regulations/policies to suit your argument.--DanJazzy (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I and anyone else is free to warn you to follow the rules and not edit against consensus or when challenged. I have no biases in this. I have never edited any of the articles question. You had a dispute with a few other editors, one of which rightfully notified the music WikiProjects. I, as an uninvolved Admin, intervened and informed you of relevant things - telling you to not edit against the MOS or against consensus. Since you have not stopped, I issued a final warning. This is all within appropriate conduct. Sergecross73 msg me 05:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The rule you cited is subject to objective interpretation. In my understanding, this interpretation has not been concluded. Therefore, your entire conduct is unwarranted and inappropriate. --DanJazzy (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but either way, please read point number, which stands either way. Two discussions have happened - at the article and the WikiProject. Many people disagree with you. Zero agree with you. You don't have a consensus. So you can't make the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 05:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree also. Three editors is not "many people". There was a haste to come to a conclusion on this matter, based on the considerations of a few editors. Worrying for Wikipedia's credibility.--DanJazzy (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOCONSENSUS too then - without a consensus, the change isn't made. Sergecross73 msg me 06:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

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 Soul music 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:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I've now rectified the changes appropriately.DanJazzy (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Black people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Please see article's edit history and talk page. An editor is being disruptive, removing cited text from the article and refusing to constructively engage in the talk page. I had warned him several times against disruption DanJazzy (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen both the article history and the talk page. That's why I left you this message. Frankly, I think it's you who is being disruptive. Please read WP:BRD. You made some bold changes to the article. Many of them were reverted. Now you should engage in a discussion, not an edit war to restore your changes. In any event, the article has been protected and now nobody can edit it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi MShabazz, thank you for your engagement. I'm actually the one who requested for the page protection. You may notice that the editor did not reverse some of the bold edits (with appropriate citations) but in fact all of them. Several issues have been raised with this article (please look at the talk page archives) and it really needs improvement.The edits were made within the consensus agreed to and subsequent guidelines issued in the infobox at the talk page. Despite me starting a discussion on the proposed changes, the editor refuses to engage. How will progress be achieved if one editor insists on having his way? Please advice, thanks.

Obviously the only way forward is for everybody to defer to your judgment. You are beyond reproach. I'm honored to have shared this space with one so great as you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Not at all Malik Shabazz. I didn't imply that. I just want the article to be improved, that's all. Before I made the bold changes, I had an extensive look at the archived talk pages. Many people have raised the same issues that I'am raising, but they haven't been addressed yet.--DanJazzy (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

You made a request to have the page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection protected. That looks like it was a mistake. After looking at your edit history I think you were wanting Black people protected with pending changes. However, that would not stop the other editor from making changes as they are autoconfirmed as well. The only way to stop the edit war is to fully protect the page, which I have done. And I have reverted back to before the edit war began. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your prompt action. How do we go about improving the article? As noted in the talk archives, the article is a mess and needs improvement. DanJazzy (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sub-Saharan Africa to Black people (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, I wasn't actually aware that this is required even within Wikipedia. Thank you again. Very helpful of you. DanJazzy (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Black people". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 2 April 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Black people, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DanJazzy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DanJazzy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Blues. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You come incredibly close to being blocked for your recent revert on the Blues article. Absolutely none of the edits you reverted were vandalism, and you actually reinstated removed unsourced content, in direct contravention of WP:V. The fact that you chose your own most recent edit as the preferred version to roll back to, along with the misleading edit summary, are incredibly bad faith, ownership behaviors, and the fact that you had the brazen cluelessness to request protection on the article after performing that type of action is nothing short of insulting. If it happens again, you will be blocked indefinitely without further waring.  Swarm  {talk}  06:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You can save your selective outrage for the racist IP editors who are deleting referenced material, specifically the fact that African-Americans originated the Blues music genre. This is a textbook case of vandalism and this page needs protection from them. --DanJazzy (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur has an RfC

Tupac Shakur has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

The RfC revisits the topic of an RfC that you previously commented on.

--LK (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)