User talk:Gjonesagain

October 2022[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal point of view or commentary added to my edits. All of my edits were cited using mainstream media articles from reputable news sources with a neutral point of view. Before I made my edits, the page had a definite political lean which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Gjonesagain (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative, you may be blocked from editing. Andre🚐 00:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are 100% neutral and contain no personal commentary or analysis. The citations in my edits are from mainstream outlets such as CNN, Politico and Fox News. Your un-doing of my edits violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This article currently contains heavy politically left leaning language. This article needs to have a neutral point of view of all facts. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to include political bias in the edits. Gjonesagain (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Examiner, New York Post and Fox News are not usable for politics in this way, you are introducing problematic material. Please refer to WP:RSP. Andre🚐 01:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Durham Report 2022 (October 15)[edit]

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

You're welcome to add this content at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative#Durham investigation, but I don't see a need for a stand-alone article at this point. Feel free to resubmit after the report is released.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Durham Report 2022 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gjonesagain! Having an article draft 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! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you recently removed content 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 your 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. Andre🚐 23:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrevan, thank you. I will re-submit with the correct info. Gjonesagain (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit is going to be removing a relevant section, I recommend that you do not. Andre🚐 00:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Andre🚐 00:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative and the Mueller report, you may be blocked from editing. Gjonesagain (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Gjonesagain (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Andre🚐 03:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gjonesagain reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre🚐 02:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022 (2)[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Russia investigation origins counter-narrative. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informational Notice - American Politics topic area[edit]

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note in advance about extended-confirmed restrictions[edit]

Hi Gjonesagain,

just so you know, in case you intend(ed) to expand your editing in one of these areas: There are special restrictions for editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian War. In a nutshell: You are currently prohibited from editing about these topics because you have not yet made 500 edits to the English Wikipedia. Details can be found at WP:A/I/PIA and WP:GS/RUSUKR. Edits that violate the restrictions may be reverted, page creations that violate the restrictions may be deleted, and users who violate the restrictions may be blocked.

Perhaps you'd like to gain experience in less controversial topic areas first. Helpful ideas for doing so can be found at the Task Center and the community portal.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it[edit]

You keep trying this change, but it changes the meaning into a falsehood. Stop it. Mueller could not prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/* Stop it */ Reply You continue to let your own political bias influence what you write. I am removing the politically biased language you enter. If you had read my citations (which you didn't) you would have seen they were taken from left leaning news sources. The Mueller investigation's goal was to determine if the Trump campaign conspired/coordinated with Russia. The Mueller report concluded there was no evidence the Trump campaign did this. Therefore, the conclusion and "one sentence" summary is that the Mueller investigation found no coordination/conspiracy with Russia. After that sentence, is where the sentence about the Trump campaign welcoming Russian help goes. You are trying to suppress the main outcome of the investigations stated goal that the Trump campaign did not conspire with Russia. Gjonesagain (talk) 01:29, 2 January 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.Andre🚐 01:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Gjonesagain! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 01:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Durham Report 2022[edit]

Hello, Gjonesagain. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Durham Report 2022, 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) 21:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Durham Report 2022[edit]

Hello, Gjonesagain. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Durham Report 2022".

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. When 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!} 20:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]