User talk:Jaredwsavage

November 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you added to November 22, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. The article that you edited has notability guidelines for the addition of birthdays and deaths to the list. Refer to WP:DOY for details on what are acceptable entries in Wikicalendar articles. Thank you. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion How exactly is the reason given in the summary not valid?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised on my talkpage, use the article talkpage - if you remove content again without adequate explanation, you may be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced NYT source is an opinion piece, which isn't ideal - however, you still need to provide a reasonable explanation why everything else should be ignored and the material removed. It's not enough to claim it's all wrong and cut it all out. Acroterion (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important messages[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 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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 pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 00:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Olivia Rodrigo. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing the mentioned activity as propaganda is by every definition true and is not a biased comment. Please look up the meaning of the word and you will see that this is in fact true. If you feel otherwise, please explain your argument.

Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to you to prove that it is "propaganda" and present reliable sources which say so. Even at that, "propaganda" is a label that leads to contentiousness, so please avoid it, except in article about fringe theories and the like. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Olivia Rodrigo, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Olivia Rodrigo was changed by Jaredwsavage (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.911353 on 2021-07-17T18:32:39+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wiktionary: propaganda (usually uncountable, plural propagandas)

   A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

How is this statement biased or untrue in this context?

Your lack of a response is very telling.

January 2022[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons given for reverting my edits were false, not because I disagreed with the action. If you had read the summary in the revision history you would have seen that. Jaredwsavage (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]