Jump to content

User talk:JTBX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JTBX (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 18 September 2013 (→Edit Warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

Deleting Sourced Material, Edit Warring, Refusing to Use Edit Summaries at Wars of national liberation

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to gut chunks of well-sourced text at random, without edit summaries, and then edit war. You don't get to decide what "ridiculous ideological nonsense" is, the reliable sources do. This behavior fits into a broader pattern of consistent POV-pushing. Revert yourself and then take the sources to the WP:RSN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You can remove your tag now..I think.--2001:558:6043:29:7875:A2D5:9DA2:A73C (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the tag now.--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What were you going to send?--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked.--Public Intelligence Analyst (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Your third 3RR of the day, congratulations. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what did I do now? Come on, get everyone involved, there is nothing I did wrong now, you are purposely threatening me. --JTBX (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is for 3 violations, youre on your 9th, you get a 3rd. You're violating policies, not being threatened. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So my reverts/edits are violations, yours are not. We can see from here who assumes they own what. --JTBX (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made 4 edits, all of them restoring the last agreed upon version, you've made NINE reverts against multiple people including several that were just being deliberately disruptive and warring. Why are you not getting that your behaviour is not acceptable and that somehow it is not the SEVERAL other editors who are not wrong? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are used for warnings before notices are made on the relevant Administrator noticeboard. They are not threats. Yes Darkwarriorblake was reverting your reverts of his reverts of more reverts of reverts. But, he also set up a discussion as per wiki guidelines on disputes and you were continuing the reverting despite growing consensus. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 15:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who set up the dispute discussion, even you agreed on the difference between sexual assault and assault. I wasn't even expecting a block since I edited the page for clarity, look at my recent edits on Shawshank, hardly anything was done that could affect discussion-and I added what I did to the talk page, I thought I was making grounds with Dark, reporting me for vandalism is just low. --JTBX (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked based on the edit warring board discussion not the AIV. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my second block in over 5 years on wiki, I miss the times when Wikipedia did not have a cabal of film article editors obsessed with ownership. But Dark, your not even the worst, at least you have a view to discuss and back up.--JTBX (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen, Darkwarriorblake hasnt claimed ownership of this, or any other article. His, and other editors edits have been about preserving the article, which has been edited to its current form by multiple independent editors, all with their own views on what should be included. But they have reached a consensus. I don't know what the current status the article is, but we should all be working together to meet the good article criteria and not tit for tat editing. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 16:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, while the dispute was happening I edited some other articles such as The Road and American Beauty, and even though they are completely unrelated to our dispute, Jacobite has reverted these edits claiming I am doing this to make a point, in other words, relating this to our current dispute here, which is absolutely ridiculous and a ridiculous accusation. I will speak to him once I am unblocked. --JTBX (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got nothing to say to me. It is quite obvious that your edits to both of those article were POINTY and designed to be disruptive. I find your claims of innocence unconvincing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have observed and kept out of this latest episode of your behaviour whilst working on this encyclopedia. You seem to have learnt nothing with regard to your dealing with other editors since "The Godfather series" and ought to go away and consider your attitude. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 07:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Shawshank Redemption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Road (2009 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God of War II, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix and Gaia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

You really shouldn't massively change an FA's intro without discussing it on the talk page. Saying it's all true but just needs better structuring is still enough to get the article demoted.
—Sowlos (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Yeah I wanted to get back to you on that but so busy right now, I'll post there don't worry.--JTBX (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Byzantine Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Franco-Prussian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Rises

You are invited to a discussion on The Dark Knight Rises talk page to help resolve a conflict. Please make your opinions known there so other editors can take both sides of the discussion on board before making any further changes. You can find the discussion here Thanks. drewmunn (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just keep reverting

Dear JTBX,

Please don't just keep reverting The Dark Knight Rises plot summary back by adding more words. The guidelines exist, and they work only when not every article aims to be an exception. Being an except isn't granted simply because you think it should be. We really need to cut something out, such as the repetition of using 'Lucious Fox' while we can use 'Fox.' The fact that Alfred smiled at the end makes no difference to the plot. It was just a smile. Fox's emotion at the end hardly matters either, what matters here is that he discovered that Bruce was still alive. There are a lot more than needs to be cut. We need to keep it under 700, so some of yours have to go, as do some of others. Not just you. It's absolutely nothing personal. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt see my message. I was editing during an edit conflict, so I had no idea what was going on. But your points are correct and you don't need to justify them.--JTBX (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BioShock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Objectivism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BioShock Infinite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nativist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Stalin

Just as an FYI, although I do appreciate your recent edit to Joseph Stalin, I would not refer to the previous intro as "inaccurate", even if it is missing a few important details (my bad). I'm going to revise the paragraphs again as a means of merging both our contributions to that article, touching on the general points while moving other trivial matters further down. If you have any issues with my future edits, please do not hesitate to raise the issue on my talk page.

Take care. Kurtis (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, I'm not an American. Kurtis (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Input at "Chinatown" talk page

Please take a look at the newest discussion at Talk:Chinatown (1974 film). Give your opinion if you'd like. Winkelvi (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question on Lamar Thomas

Hello, JTBX! I'm Huon. I have replied to your question on the Articles for Creation Help Desk about Lamar Thomas.
You can read it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lamar Thomas. Huon (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WW II PR

I've requested a PR for World War II, and thought you should know, as you seem to be a regular editor of that article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The Old Jacobite

There's a discussion at User talk:PresN#The Pacific (TV miniseries) that you might be interested in. --Niemti (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI mention

Hi, your name was mentioned in this ANI discussion. You may wish to make a comment there. Blackmane (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011–present Spanish protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Judge, Jury, Executioner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones

Thanks for your post on my Talk. I shall study it later today and comment on it there so please "watch". Best wishes, Gareth, at 08:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Stolen Eagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood tie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment.

If you are concerned about an incident please feel free to take it to ANI. Know that I am uncertain, based on your comment, what precisely you consider that incident to be. You have made a Bold addition to the article lede. It has been reverted by several editors. You have been invited to discuss the content on the talk page. This is the essence of WP:BRD. I look forward to reaching a consensus on the lede quickly. Thanks. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Smedley Butler. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. You appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please cease. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JTBX&oldid=573567458"