User talk:J.Turner99

February 2021

Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Isra Hirsi, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction notice: American Politics

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.

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.

Template:Z33 _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for help

Could I please know what edit of mine was deleted? Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

J.Turner99, I'm not quite sure what question you're asking.

You only have a single edit which is technically deleted; you made a minor grammatical correction to Sexual Desire (book) back in August. That page has since been deleted, and your edit along with it. But I suspect that's not what you meant.

You can also get a list of edits you've made which have been Reverted, by clicking on this link. That seems more likely to be what you wanted. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith No did in fact mean deleted and not reverted. Thank you for the help. Do you know why the book's page was deleted? I remember it being a long, well sourced, article. J.Turner99 (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted due to being listed as having a copyright problem for seven days. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

331dot Did you have to delete the whole article? Also do you know where I could lobby to bring criticism sections back? Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not delete it, but copyright violations cannot be allowed to stand as they potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. I'm not sure what you mean by "lobby to bring criticism sections back", but if what you want to do involves more than one or a few articles, you may start discussing it at the Village Pump in the appropriate section. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. J.Turner99 (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Warning

I am an uninvolved administrator who has noticed recent activity associated with your editing. I do not have the patience to work out if you should be blocked now so I am leaving a warning: do not template the regulars with pointless messages until you have gained a lot more experience, and do not waste people's time with things like absurd sockpuppet reports. Judgment is needed to know when a template should be used and any further demonstration of a lack of suitable judgment will result in rapidly escalating blocks. If anyone notices a problem, please ping me.

Regarding the above request for help, if you are wondering why diff was reverted, try looking at the article history and reading the very correct edit summaries. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq Thank you for your message. I fear the term "absurd sockpuppet reports" suggests you are not Assuming good faith.

The request for help was, in fact to do with my one deleted edit, not any reverted one. J.Turner99 (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Good faith is not relevant. If someone repeatedly disrupts the community with time-wasting activity, that person will be removed regardless of whether they acted in good faith. If you want independent and kind advice, ask at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq Did it not occur to you that as a new user, I was not aware I disrupted the community? Another admin actually said "Maybe calling your report "bad faith" wasn't the right choice of words." Why do you just assume I filed the report out of retaliation? Why not look at the substance of my claim? RoySmith had the decency to look into my case, I respect their findings. I provided multiple links and timescales. Your objection worries me as it seems unbefitting for a admin to not respect a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives. J.Turner99 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, whether you are a new editor or whether you are editing in good faith are not relevant. What matters at Wikipedia is whether people help or hinder the encyclopedia. Everyone makes mistakes—no problem. People go a bit crazy from time to time—no problem. Being unwilling or unable to take advice—big problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq WP:AAGF J.Turner99 (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)