User talk:Jack M E 01

Welcome![edit]

Hi Jack M E 01! I noticed your contributions to Jeremy Bulloch and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Yeeno (talk) 🍁 22:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rachel Robinson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Hi @Jack M E 01:, please stop edit warring. There is a consensus on Wiki that people are described as British, unless their notability is confined solely to a particularly country of the UK OR they self-identify with one country of the UK ONLY (e.g. Scottish/Welsh nationalism). Additionally, another user pointed out in his reverting of your edits that a voice artist in the context of David Graham is just voice acting, and therefore its inclusion is just repetition. Please respect the opinions of other editors, particularly those with good experience and understanding of BLPs. If you disagree with a decision, raise it on the respective talk page of a bio you wish to edit so that it can be discussed in a constructive manner with other users, but don't edit war with other users. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm RteeeeKed. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mark Hamill have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. RteeeeKed (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. Your recent edit(s) to the page Patricia Haines appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Your change of marriage year was unsourced and in conflict with sources. Adakiko (talk) 12:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template changes for unbulleted lists[edit]

Hello, Jack. What's your rationale behind edits like this, where you change from {{ubl}} to {{plainlist}}? They seem to go against WP:COSMETIC (even though you're not a bot). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you never answered my question above, now I'm really wondering about a change in the opposite direction. In this edit you changed the spouse listing from {{plainlist}} to {{ubl}}. Could you please explain why? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 04:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Luisa Mattioli, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Ringo Starr. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ringo Starr, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at John Lennon, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Sundayclose (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Ed Asner

added a link pointing to Nee

Phil Hartman

added a link pointing to Westchester High School

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bill Farmer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Thunderbirds Are Go (TV series). - FlightTime (open channel) 03:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

Please stop edit warring at the Betty White article. Your changes are not in keeping with guidelines about internal links. Thank you. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing it. Have you read the warnings on your user talk page? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Betty White. 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norman Lloyd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brentwood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Shatner edit[edit]

I have reverted your addition of a year of birth to Melanie Shatner. In addition to Wikipedia's basic principle of citing sources (Wikipedia:Citing sources), a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person (WP:BLPPRIVACY). Eddie Blick (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of living centenarians. Renewal6 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mino Raiola. Never pronounce someone dead without a reliable source! You should know better. Favonian (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers)[edit]

Hello, I'm DerbyCountyinNZ. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FozzieHey (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) because of an apparent refusal to communicate. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, users must be willing and able to discuss matters of concern with their edits in that area.

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 ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a partial block, you are still able to reply to the above-mentioned thread about your edits at WP:ANI. That's basically the point here, you have to be willing to speak to others when there are issues with your edits, and there are eighteen examples of you not doing so right here on this talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm sorry that I have not communicated. I realise all of my errors and feel so deeply selfish and rude for not wanting to respond. I'm autistic and I have trouble communicating and interacting with people. I hope that we can discuss my future and hipe that this block can be removed.

Thank you Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2022 (GMT)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack M E 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I realise the stupidity that I have done over the past. This is becuase I am autistic and do not know how to communiicate well.I hope you understand my reasoning as I deeply regret my behaviour. Yours sincerely. Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think that you are sincere here, and that you being unblocked is a definite possibility here, but I don't feel comfortable doing so based on what I see here. You must, please, still describe what steps you will take to better communicate with others. No matter how good your intentions, and even with any conditions that might affect you, this is a necessity. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What edits do you wish to make to articles, and what steps will you take to better communicate with others? 331dot (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you've clearly made good contributions to Wikipedia. For messages like the above ones on your talk page, just an acknowledgement when you've made a mistake or to someone pointing out a policy you may not have been aware of should suffice. I certainly don't like asking for blocks for clearly well-intentioned editors (which I hope you could see based on my comments at the ANI discussion) but editors do need to communicate as Wikipedia is inherently a collaborative project). Remember, we're all human and we all make mistakes (I certainly do). I hope this doesn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia and I hope you can be unblocked and get back to editing. I think initially it would be good for you to see WP:RS to read about how we treat sources here. It would also be good for you to acknowledge if you're willing to communicate with editors who may raise issues on your talk page in the future. FozzieHey (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Again may I apologise for my behaviour. I hope that we can come to some sort of arrangement and that I can return to editing (ASAP). Cheers Jack M E 01 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2022 (GMT)

It's great that you are now responding, but your comments come across as rather vague. 331dot has asked a fairly specific question above which has not really been replied to in a meaningful way. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to add to or update certain details on biographic pages that may seem out-of-date. Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2022 (GMT)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack M E 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To better communicate with others, I will now respond to messages seen on my Talk Page. Jack M E 01 (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but I'm going to decline this request. You need to demonstrate that you can communicate better with others. As you have only been partially blocked, you can still edit article talk pages, as well as other user talk pages. In the 10 days since you raised this request you have not taken the opportunity to do this. I suggest you look at pages you want to edit and discuss any changes on the talk page. Then when you feel more confident in communicating, come back and make another unblock request.

I realise that communication comes easier to some people than to others, but as has been stated above Wikipedia is a collaborative project and good communication is vital. Don't let this put you off - take the plunge, ask for help if you need it and good luck! — Voice of Clam 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've made your comment an unblock request so it will be reviewed by someone. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jack M E 01 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2022 (GMT)

OK. I didn't know that I could do this. Jack M E 01 (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2022 (GMT)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jack M E 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am now becoming active on talk pages and will continue this practice in the future. Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2022 (GMT)

Decline reason:

The unblock request has been open for three weeks and no admin has been inclined to unblock. I think you need to practice some more written communication before you attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, unfortunately. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Beeblebrox: Do you think unblocking now would be reasonable?JBW (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see two choices: unblock or revoke talk page access. Of the two, unblocking seems more reasonable. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? Jack M E 01 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (GMT)

JBW is addressing Beeblebrox. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect. Your appearing on several talkpages to get editors to do proxy changes for you, is a way of getting around your block. Letting @Beeblebrox: know of this. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it's good or bad? Jack M E 01 (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what administrators think. PS - Please learn to indent your posts, properly. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page watcher) - Jack M E 01 was blocked from editing mainspace due to their lack of communication on talk pages. When I declined an unblock request, above, I suggested they needed to spend more time making discussions on talk pages before being unblocked. Asking for changes to be made, whilst possibly falling fowl of proxy editing rules, is a step in the right direction for this user and personally I don't see a problem with this. — Voice of Clam 18:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement[edit]

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I have decided to remove this Wikipedia account and start a fresh. If you could allow this action, I would be eternally grateful.

Thank you. Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts that have active sanctions are not eligible for a clean start. Creation of a new account will be an abuse of multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Jack M E 01 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]