User talk:Jaccy Jaydy

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jaccy Jaydy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Marxism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bped1985 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bped1985, thank you! - Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm RolandR. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Marxism that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. When challenging another editor's work, comment on the content, not on the editor. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marxism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 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. William Avery (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RolandR - warrior Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jaccy_Jaydy reported by User:William Avery (Result: ). Thank you. William Avery (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you about any further reverts at Marxism to restore your preferred material, like this one. The complaint about your edits that was filed at WP:AN3 is now at this location (permalink). If you persist in reverting this article before getting consensus at the talk page, you are risking a block. If you have any questions you can reply on my talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like threats. May be you want to discuss the issue on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales . I got such advise from good friend. May be you think that English Wikipedia is the 4-th International under Leon Trotsky and RolandR. I don't think so. Already many days nobody against new relevent material. By the way. And nobody was against from January 7. Only the supporter of the 4-th International. Thousands of people could make rollback but they respect new section. I suggest integrate new material into the article ! - Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Marxism is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can explain better - if will be need to do it (you can understand this after my actions). Any criticism of Marxism can become controversial even. I wish make not rollback but new edition. - Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

January 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Marxism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 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. RolandR (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need keep silent if you wish be free of blocking. Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Marxism[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Marxism. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respected EdJohnston! I have no any blame. I asked you explain me my mistakes (without blocking). You could tell me about sansctions more (the meaning). RonaldR began war of edits (no possibility to show you my actions). And I made rollback to protect my right show you my actions in the article I ask you block him even! Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Jaccy Jaydy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Respected EdJohnston! I have no any blame. I asked you explain me my mistakes (without blocking). You could tell me about sansctions more (the meaning). RonaldR began war of edits (no possibility to show you my actions). And I made rollback to protect my right show you my actions in the article I ask you block him even! Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the reason for your block (WP:NOTTHEM). We don't permit sockpuppetry (using another account to continue the edit war you were blocked for) so I'm going to have to decline this unblock (see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 13 January 2016 (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.