Jump to content

User talk:JalenBarks/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This review found "However, the causal link between suicide-related Internet use and suicidal thoughts and behaviours is still unclear"[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, though an edit request by the same IP on 13 Reasons Why asked for the same reference to be included. If it's possible to replace, then please do so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
We have high standards for medical content. A research letter is not a sufficient source[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff

You recently undid one of my edits to David Hasselhoff#Knight Rider. The line: "Now, over 33 years later, the show is still playing throughout the world.[12]" is not consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (see MOS:RELTIME) due to its in-the-present phrasing. I revised it to the Wikipedia:As_of phrasing as recommended, with a backdate of 2015 because that's when the reference was accessed. Why undo it?

Now I've had a second opportunity to view the reference (https://www.nbc.com/knight-rider-classic?nbc=1), and it strikes me that the citation fails verification entirely. Just because the show is available to American viewers on NBC's website doesn't mean it's "still playing throughout the world". The sentence should be removed, better phrased, or better sourced. --2600:1008:B059:121E:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!

Thank you for reviewing the edits and making the proposed changes to the CriticalBlue page - the time and effort you put in to doing this is greatly appreciated! I'm sorry for the delay with this message, I hadn't logged in to wikipedia for a while Houseonbluehill (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you switch CrateIO back to CrateDB?

HI Jalen, thanks very much for making edits to the CrateDB page! I think my edit suggestions on the talk page were confusing maybe...I wasn't suggesting that "CrateDB" be switched to "CrateIO," which is a change you made. To clarify... "CrateDB" is the name of the DBMS software that page talks about, so the page should be entitled CrateDB. Crate.io (aka "CrateIO") is the name of the company that does most of the development on the software (which is open source).

Any chance you can undo the page title and CrateDB->CrateIO reference changes you made? So basically switch all the CrateIO references back to CrateDB :-)

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks again,

Andy DatabACE (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your edits. I saw you removing dead links but it might be better to just leave them there. Wikipedia:Link rot isn't a policy or guideline but its says "Do not delete a URL just because it has been tagged with [dead link] for a long time". I actually found an archived version of one of the dead links and used the title of another of the dead links to find the article on a different site "AFL, ESPN ENTER INTO FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT". What do you think? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Ricky Rubio

To be honest, I haven't looked at the Ricky Rubio page for years. I also gave up my admin rights, so I wouldn't be able to change the protection status myself. You can do whatever you think is best. Zagalejo^^^ 23:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

question about my recent warning

hey, I edited a page adding information on the Need for Speed Payback page and I got a message from you saying that i broke the rules or something. i don't understand how I broke the rules when everything had sources and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeheadinvade (talk • contribs) 05:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. See WP:NOTMANUAL. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Snakeheadinvade As for the edit that followed, the edit contradicts what is in the source. Please always prepare your edits with a reliable source. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

sorry, im new to wiki, so I don't know if there is a way to reply to your reply. but what im not understanding is how my source isn't reliable when it was the official Need for Speed website. can you maybe explain a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakeheadinvade (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Snakeheadinvade Don't worry about it. That's why I provided links to help you. See, the issue here is that the official website itself is a primary source, which we cannot accept alone for a change. For more on what the WikiProject for video games accepts, see WP:VG/RS.
Some other things to consider in your time on Wiki: sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~), and reply to posts with the "Edit" button on the section you are replying to. I took the liberty of combining both threads here for you. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jd22292: Although reliable secondary sources are preferred, primary sources like the official NFS site are acceptable. The issue with Snakeheadinvade's edits is that they go into too much gameplay detail, so far as to be written like a manual or guide. Like you said, Wikipedia is not a game guide. What would be acceptable is for Snake to sum up the gameplay elements into a brief overview in a 'Gameplay' section with the NFS website sourced, and not get into the embellishments the developer/publisher may be providing. Even better would be to find a secondary source (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) that discusses the same thing, and use them. TarkusABtalk 16:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I like to point out that some of the information was copied straight from the Need for Speed website, which is COPYVIO. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
TheDeviantPro This must be a job for WP:RFO then. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page

Glad to hear you are feeling better and to see you editing actively. It's fine to take a break from editing if you are too stressed—Wikipedia is not the be-all and end-all of life. Altamel (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided after the discouragement was over that COI edit requests are not my forté; it seems I have a major flaw at understanding what's promotional and what isn't. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll gain better judgement through experience, don't worry. For me, a good rule of thumb is to put myself in the eyes of a casual reader. If I read the article after the edit request was implemented, would I better understand the subject? Would I trust this article? Alternatively, if I knew all the facts already and then stumbled upon the article, would I feel misled by Wikipedia? It takes time to develop this "sixth sense." Find your own pace for editing Wikipeda, go slowly if you need to assess a situation before acting on it, and you will succeed. Best of luck, Altamel (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still wondering...

...how this is more relevant of a response compared to what I responded with, considering they aren't requesting user rights, nor it can even be construed as such? SkyWarrior 01:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"I would like to add content onto articles" sounds to me like the user is going around protected articles and hoping that an administrator would notice them and grant them the right to do so. Perhaps you could also check that user's contributions and see if they've been making the same requests to other protected articles. A user's contributions might tell you something about that user. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've actually checked the user's contribs; they have less than 100 edits; only four of them are to talk pages, three of them to Talk:The Emoji Movie. I don't see it as someone who wants a user right but rather as someone who needs to be more detailed in their edit requests, hence why I feel your responses are unnecessary compared to mine. I'll leave them a message on explaining edit requests in more detail. SkyWarrior 01:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I've already started the thread. You can help the user out by clarifying. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent report at UAA

You reported Thomasbickerdike at WP:UAA. You will note that in Wikipedia:Username policy the section on "Stage names" says: Users may use their stage name, pen name, or other nickname as their username, provided that it uniquely identifies a single person. This is not considered promotional, even if commercial performances or publications are made under such a name. Accordingly, I have declined the report. Please bear this in mind in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jalen, I just wanted to folllow up on your UAA report for TheGreatWikiLord. The user has been around since 2015, and I don't think their username was disruptive or misleading per WP:MISLEADNAME or WP:DISRUPTNAME, so I have declined your report. I just wanted to give you a heads up. Best, ceranthor 18:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

This request is interesting. While the episode does not mention the dog, the corresponding article does mention the dog as well as many articles found online. I am not sure if that matters, but we should aim to be as factual as possible. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I will allow you to revert my edit then. I apologize for not checking nor asking the IP for sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You're fine, I didn't know if the episode summaries were taken from somewhere or not, so it took me awhile to do some research. nihlus kryik (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

CAS page for Symbolic Math Toolbox

I made the updates for the release and date as requested, can you please update the CAS page now for Symbolic Math Toolbox?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_algebra_systems

Thanks Sarah Palfreyman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spalfrey (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the reason for why you are removing wikilinks from references? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a point in their use. AWB typically detects when multiple wikilinks to a single article are used, and while I understand the purpose of some links, I don't see the point in others. Perhaps we can reach a consensus at WP:VG for this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I've rollbacked some of your recent "AWB cleanup" edits. Please do not use AWB to remove wikilinks in citations. It is not helpful. Repeated wikilinks in citations has never been considered as a case of overlinking. In fact, MOS:DUPLINK says the exact opposite. Please disable this function when using AWB. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: Thank you for doing this. Please continue checking for more such edits in my history; the edits you reverted don't appear to be the only changes I've made. Though my only question is what setting disables interwiki link checks. I can't seem to find it in the User Manual. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure. It would be better to ask at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. I thought that AWB did not remove duplicate wikilinks on the default settings. Whenever I use AWB, I disable all automatic changes anyway, so that it only makes the changes I specifically set. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: I've gone through my whole edit history from the past week and reverted all of my AWB wikilink removals. Thanks for informing me of the guideline, along with Masem at WT:VG. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

AWB does not remove duplicate wikilinks. It just provides a list of them. It's editor's choice how to deal them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring and exceeding 3RR at Uncaged, Vol. 1. When the block expires, please return to Talk:Uncaged, Vol. 1 and continue to discuss the changes to the page within the existing discussion. If other editors refuse to take part in the discussion or refuse to accept consensus, you can request that they individually be blocked for disruptive editing or in extraordinary circumstances, that the page be protected. You must not edit war even if you believe yourself to be in the right or that your edits are more valid than another user's. Nick (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nick: It might be considered edit warring, but the user did not exceed WP:3RR. There has to be four reverts, but I only see three ([3], [4], [5]). This doesn't count because it was a self-revert. Also I know Jd22292 isn't new, but they were never given a warning. Sro23 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sro23: Do you honestly believe Jd22292 needs a warning to be told to not edit war ? I've struck the 3RR issue, as you say, it's a self revert, which would of course suggest Jd22292 is familiar with the 3RR policy already... Nick (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I've unblocked, 24 hours is maybe a little too harsh for a first time edit war. Nick (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nick: Although I can agree it was a bit harsh, please also see this diff. I had argued over naming conventions on another article and ceased when the warning came. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree it was a little too harsh. Imagine if we got blocks every time we simply came close to breaching 3rr, it would be crazy. I think that occasionally it's better to just let the edit wars happen. Sro23 (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

Please, be more cautious with your editing. I talked to the blocking administrator on your behalf, but you can't count on getting a quick unblock in the future. It was very generous of Nick to give you a pass this time around. Think before you post: editing Wikipedia skillfully is akin to defensive driving. If you just barrel ahead with whatever edit comes to your mind, most of the time nothing serious will happen, but inevitably, you'll inadvertently violate policy or antagonize other editors. On the other hand, if you anticipate how other editors might disagree with your edits, how other editors could view your edits as violating policy, and judge whether to proceed or not based on how other editors might react, you'll save yourself much needless grief. Edit warring, vandalism, civility—these all can have borderline cases that different admins will react to with different standards.

There are situations where editing boldly are good, but it would be beneficial for you to change your editing flow and exercise an abundance of caution—at least for a while. Talk with editors if you sense a conflict is brewing. Read up on policy pages if you think you might be breaking a rule. I always reread WP:CSD before placing a speedy tag I am unfamiliar with. Heck, even ANI and Arbcom cases are good reading material. I read them to understand what causes disputes and what deescalates conflicts. Just think before you post. It would be a pity if your very valuable editing was stymied by conflicts with other users. You've had a setback, but you will overcome it. Wishing you the best, Altamel (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

I hope that my writings aren't controversial. If so then let us negotiate the terms of how the articles shall be written to reach a fair compromise. 2600:8803:BE00:17F:980F:177F:5872:F15B (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

At least there's a clause of the Arbitration decision you're following: discussing the issues. However, you have violated the "no restore" clause of the decision: once an edit is reverted its original author may not restore it for a full 24 hours. It has been less than 24 hours, even less than an hour since the initial reversions of your edits. However, I would rather you go to the article's Talk pages rather than my own, as other editors are involved with the individual articles you edited, and they would be better inclined to answer your concerns. Thanks for coming to my Talk page anyway, but I have no stance currently on the matter, other than taking the articles to RfPP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit to Ted Kaczynski

Hi there, I was just wondering why my edit to Ted Kaczynski preserving links was reverted? Was it caught up with the other edit reverted and unintentionally reverted along with it or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. For some reason, your edit got caught up in the Pending Changes backlog that included disruption by an IP. You are free to make the changes again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification on that, I figured that that was the most probable explanation due to the fact that the edit (was intended at least) to improve the article in the event that the site changes or whatnot, but wanted to double check before remaking the edit to avoid any conflicts and make sure I wasn't making a mistake that you were correcting I didn't know I was making. Anyhow, thanks for the clarification and I have remade the edit. Happy editing! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anthrocon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anthrocon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:80.181.119.244

User:80.181.119.244 is more than likely User:Benniejets, who is indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. I've reported them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets. If you have any more problems with similar IPs about Italian topics, it's probably him. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the problem. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Note

About your edit at the AfD here, I am asking you to strike that. As I pointed out at the indefinitely blocked editor's talk page, what they wrote there was an abuse of their talk page, and by repeating that claim, you have violated WP:MEAT and this is blockable. The comment has already been responded to, so you cannot delete it, but you should strike it. Would you please do that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for informing me of the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, Jytdog and jd22292, I believe this comment should also be removed/striked I have to inform you, Sundartripathi, that DeniseJZ has accused you of having a close connection with View. For this reason, I have tagged your comment.. Sundartripathi (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, but you only struck part of your MEAT edit. Would you please strike all of it? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I will apologize on behalf of Sundartripathi for them stepping on your toes with the same message, but the request is done. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much! yes this is a bit of a tangle. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

List of best-selling girl groups

Hi. Please do not accept unsourced edits at List of best-selling girl groups. That article was protected precisely because fans kept inflating groups' sales in spite of what the cited sources actually say. Hence it is important to actually check that the "source" these fans cite actually support their claimed numbers. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: Thank you for informing me. I will leave the article alone for a few days. If it persists, it's best to keep requesting semi-protection until the admins are convinced the article deserves indefinite protection. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Can you explain me why my edit wasn't accepted? I thought that I've used a real source... SONEfr (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)SONEfr

@SONEfr: Hello. Either your edit got caught up in another fan's inflation or the source you provided was unreliable. I'm sure Bennv3771 who warned me about this already can tell you more about it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok thanks! SONEfr (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)SONEfr

I might be an alternate account of a certain good-faith user who also edited that page

Changed my password on the original account to discourage me editing Wikipedia on weekdays. Wink wink. I don't know said password, it's stored somewhere at home. Do not worry. Nikita doesn't know enough English to edit the page. 104.39.26.246 (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I got you. I'll revert on false alarm grounds. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
That being said, this is my college lounge's IP, so you may see unintelligent people attack Wikipedia under my same address. 104.39.26.246 (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Certification inflator

Would you mind if I renamed this to either Nikita or the username the SPI is opened under? I don't think anyone knows Nikita as the "Certification inflator". Thanks for opening this LTA case; it probably should have been done a long time ago. ~ Rob13Talk 04:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Of course you can rename it. Since many users know him as Nikita anyways and the user tried thrice unsuccessfully to create his own LTA, Nikita sounds like a better name to use for the case. Thanks! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Gameguest44/2016 Irwin Tools Night Race

Hello Jd22292. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Gameguest44/2016 Irwin Tools Night Race, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User was not blocked when article created. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not an overlink, as Atlanta is not linked anywhere else in the article, nor would the fact that their headquarters is listed in a different article's infobox mean that we shouldn't clarify where the event was filmed. Turner has lots of studios all over the world, not just at their headquarters. -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for letting me know

Thank you so much for your information! I will take it to account before I make future edits relating to that page. Sincerely, 98.191.196.7 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes?

I was editing the Cities Skylines Wikipedia and then a few minutes after I finished you reverted my changes? Why? Friendly North Korean (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Friendly North Korean: Please read both the edit history and WP:GAMECRUFT to see why I reverted your changes. Your changes are unsourced.
On another note, I've sent you a message on your Talk page about your username. Please read it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests

Hi Jd22292. You seem to be quickly declining a lot of semi-protected edit requests without investigating them at all. For example, this old one does not require consensus to make. If you follow both of the links and investigate the request you will see that one of the links is broken and the other one is the proper link. This more recent one also is a valid request. If you follow the citation in the article it states that Bush graduated from Andover in 1942--high school in the US takes four years. There is a simple and reasonable extrapolation from the source that he entered in 1938 as the request suggests. Here, the editor made several sensible suggestions to correct bad grammar, style, and vaguely worded phrases. These you declined as original research?? None of the suggestions made are original research. These were the first three I saw and judging by your time between edits, you have not been looking into the other requests that you quickly declined. Please take the time to read, understand, and investigate the requests before declining them. If you do not understand the edit request, please let somebody else handle the request rather than declining it. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Malinaccier: Thank you for informing me. The first link is actually an LTA involving Nate Speed, which another user informed me about last month. This thread explains it in more detail. As for the second one, I will go back and reverse my decision based on what you said. Thanks again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fursuit.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fursuit.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering retirement, some advice

I think your biggest issue is a rush and enthusiasm to jump into deep Wikipedia processes. AFD, patrolling edits (New pages, recent changes, pending changes), edit requests, etc. It's great you want to work in these areas, but they need very solid understand of policy and procedure. My recommendation would be that instead of retiring, you step back from working in these areas. They are areas that are likely to result in conflicts, or angry IPs or otherwise good-faith-but-bad-action editors attacking you. I would take some time to do a bit of content work. Do minor cleanup, or work on an article for a favorite topic for a while. Remember there's no deadline, no rush. If you have a particular article in the video game area, which is my specialty, let me know if I can provide any advice or guidance on it. There's a ton to do, if a particular area is giving you issue, simply work on a different one. -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

While that is some good advice, I also run a YouTube channel, which I have been taking a lot of time away from out of distraction with Wikipedia. I intend to retire once I'm able to get back to working on said channel regularly. Thanks for the advice anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing

You are reverting my edits, apparently just for the sake of it. Your first revert had the summary "Please take it to the Talk page; you've been reverted multiple times now.". My edit had previously been reverted once, without any explanation. So it seems you reverted a second time, just so that it had been reverted more than once. Your second revert had the summary "You are removing sourced content without explaining your actions". If you had bothered to read the edit summary I left when I made the edit, you'd see the explanation; you yourself did not bother to explain why when you started reverting; and "sourced" is a necessary, not sufficient condition for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.

So, it's time for you to stop behaving disruptively. If you think there is a reason based in policy to include what I removed, say what it is. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I clearly said to take it to the Talk page. When someone reverts your edits without explanation, they think your edit is vandalism. To me, your edit summary of "absurdly trivial" is unclear. What exactly in the section you removed was trivial? This is what I want you taking to the Talk page of Des Lynam, not to my own. Thank you for coming to my Talk page anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What exactly was trivial? Everything I removed was trivial. It is now fully clear that you are behaving disruptively just for the sake of it. Be warned that I am about to file an edit warring report. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You are both at 3RR. Take it to the article's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ferret I have conceded to the IP's statements on the article's Talk page. However, after this whole edit warring report has come to a conclusion, I have decided that I no longer wish to keep my pending changes reviewer role; I realize how stressful the review process has become. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want it back let me know. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Israeli policy

I am very sorry if I have angered you in any way but please tell me if my contribution is wrong or right on Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. If I am wrong, please revert it. However if I am right, then you can leave it if you want. Please don't forget to say on my talk page why it is wrong or right in detail. I am not very good in vague directions so I might need a little explanation as noted above. Thank you! 98.191.196.7 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anthrocon

The article Anthrocon you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anthrocon for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-edit guild wars

If you are unsure, simply don't answer. Someone else will get to it, there's no rush. "Unclear, X to Y" is not really the right answer, as the IP is asking for an addition and it was clear enough. The real issue is a lack of a strong source to back this, rather than an off the cuff comment at a convention during an informal interview. -- ferret (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

could you just tell me why you keep putting speedy deletions you do not leave a reason so i know and it would be helpful if you told me so i can improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterlerwing (talk • contribs)

@Masterlerwing: Thank you for coming to my page with your concerns. As you can tell, I have tagged the articles for A7 speedy deletion, meaning they are articles about Latin American reggae singers that do not show any significance; in other words, what makes them important enough to warrant an article. I recommend looking up more sources about these subjects, preferably from a newspaper in Colombia or a Latin American journal that covers people like the two you wrote about. Your articles will not survive if an administrator does not see any claim of significance. In the case that they do end up deleted, I recommend recreating these articles in the draftspace and improving upon them there. This is one part of the Articles for creation process. I have also had an article I created suffer via the speedy deletion process; you are not alone. I hope you enjoy your time on the encyclopedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that you are not in the wrong by contesting the speedy deletion tags. I among many others who might think the same about these articles as well as future articles you make appreciate your efforts in defending your reasoning for creating these articles. Like I said, a patrolling administrator has the final say on whether or not an article survives the speedy deletion process. Furthermore, the administrator also looks at what you say when you contest the deletion and uses that information to better assist their decision. The strength of your reasoning for contesting deletion is important. Good luck! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

About Sonic Forces

Hey, I just wanted to say something about what I did on Sonic Forces and I don't know how to open a conversation or whatever its called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.1.94.255 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello IP. Please use the "New Section" button on Talk:Sonic Forces. It will be the same button for other Talk pages in the future. Hope this helps. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Anyway, when I talked about "Mania Sonic" being the Classic Sonic from another dimension I said it was a fan speculation and that Sega has yet to confirm. I established no solid connection between the two. I'm just saying. Also, please remind me how to catalog the date please. I forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:c015:eff0:7065:cfde:45a7:c636 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually unsure of what you're talking about here, but I'd like to inform you that any form of speculation, whether from fans or the like, is considered a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I'm sure users at the Sonic Forces Talk page will say the same thing. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. (~~~~) No one wants to add the Unsigned stamp to your posts. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
All right. Thanks for the tip.2602:30A:C015:EFF0:4B6:98FB:DC73:900A (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Education program and WP:NOTWEBHOST

Just a quick note. If a user creates a userpage for a current/upcoming course for Wikipedia:Education program, that userpage does not fall under WP:NOTWEBHOST, because those accounts should become active in the near future. Editing Wikipedia is already daunting, there's no need to scare new editors with speedy deletion notices when it's not warranted. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Patar knight: Thank you. I've also sent the same message to the IP that asked for the speedy deletion through Slzeng's Talk page here. They have acknowledged their mistake as well. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sock warnings

Hi JD, just as a friendly note re: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alisha Actress and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fabulousdiana, you're not required to notify suspected sock operators of suspected socking. If you choose to do so, that's OK, but I just thought I'd mention that it's not a requirement like our ANI requirements, and I have yet to see a sockpuppetry case that was enhanced or clarified as a result of a notification. In my experience, if you notify suspected socks who are actually socking, they quickly jump to the next thing, which means that it's just a waste of good editors' time. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Mania

You asked me to cite a source, I did, then your remove it again anyway, with a different reason...why not just state your original intent? Looks like you're just trying to censor this info for some reason. (Don't know why, if you google 'Sonic Mania' it's the first news result, b/c it just happened, which is why i was trying to add it to the wiki in the first place.) The information is relevant, and is significant to show the progression of how Denovo's use has changed. It is true that most games are cracked within a few days, now, but that wasn't always the case. Certain Denovo games took almost a year to crack...showing this progression is pretty important to understanding how denovo's use by developers is changing. if you're going to have a section related to Denovo, i don't see why you would omit information related to it. This is something that just happened and is newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robd007 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Robd007: This statement is probably more appropriate to place in the Denuvo page. I was only in agreement with Dissident93 in making the second reversion, as he was the one who made the case that any game that includes an anti-piracy DRM has been cracked at some point. I don't know any other reason besides Dissident's rationale, but maybe he'll have a better response than I do. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Because it's misleading and trivial. Sega did not remove Denuvo from the game, nor can anybody currently play it on Steam without it. It was simply cracked and then made available to pirates, something that basically every PC game, with DRM or not, has had happen to them. Unless Sega removes it themselves, which is unlikely as they have never removed Denuvo from any of their games in the past, it doesn't belong in the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JalenBarks/Archive_2&oldid=1242663199"