User talk:Jake Zhang

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jake Zhang, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

You contributions

Thank you for your interest in contributing to wikipedia. Please be aware that one of the main wikipedia policies is that you cannot write your own personal essays on subjects ("wikipedia:No original research"). All contributions must be based on publications taked from reliable sources. Please see the policies, Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:CITE.

For this reason I am afraid the articles like The Matrix Philosophy and Circum-Pacific War will be deleted. I hope this will not discourage you from editing wikipedia. Just remember: take a book or an article and start form there. - 7-bubёn >t 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Brown

The information you're inserting is not appropriate for the article and it is unsourced. Please stop. If you continue to revert without discussion, I will treat it as vandalism. Consider this your first warning. Enigma^msg 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if some of my "unsourced" information is "non-notable garbage" and "vandalism" and not worth explaining its deletion. Plus, why are your time stamps marked for tomorrow's date with a time of 00:36? --Jake Z. (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated Universal Time Enigma^msg 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles E. Brown Middle School. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enigma^msg 00:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charlie Brown school place thing

Two things: 1) Please stop the edit war. 2) Let me ask you a question: You went to the two schools on your userpage, right? Well, per our conflict of interest policy you are not allowed to edit them. Whilst your contributions may be positive, you still are directly/indirectly related to the article's subject, and, as such, it's inappropriate for to edit them as you may have an unconscious bias. Again, please do not edit war and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any assistance or if you have any questions. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Situation

I would like to shed some light to the situation regarding one my of articles "Charles E. Brown Miidle School". I am not theoretically engaged in an edit war, but in a struggle to preserve the article from vandalizers and other users who have little respect for the author or his writing. I would also like people to understand that I write about these schools I have been fortunate to attend not to express my personal opinions, but because no one else will write about them, and they should deserve to be published no matter if the writer had studied there or not. --76.19.141.253 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please either sign in or don't. It's your choice but you can only choose the account or the IP. Not both. Please see WP:VANDAL for more information on what vandalism is. Please also note that I am an administrator and not a vandal. Again, please read WP:COI. And now you've admitted to it. You cannot make any major adjustments to that article, friend. If you require any assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:COI, I am not expressing my personal opinion nor am I willingly promoting these school in their interest or mine. If you happen to find any phrase that may sound as if I was directly expressing my opinion, I would encourage that you or anyone else try to fix it instead of gutting the article. Wikipedia was created to encourage each other in their writing, and not to declare personal feelings through irresponsible editting.

--Jake Z. (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at Charles E. Brown Middle School via this account and an alternative IP account - both since blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --VS ^talk 00:08, 17 March 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not question the administrator's decision to block this page. What s/he was doing was done for the good of Wikipedia, and I respect the decision. However, I wish to explain the situation regarding the article in question. There have been several users who have made initially resonable edits to the article. They did what they did in the best interest of the article. However, there has been a misunderstanding. I undid the edit, hoping to come at speaking terms after the article had been stabilized. The action obviously was misinterpreted, and the user proceeded to revert the edits I had undone. Let me make this clear. I have made no edits to the article other than undoing what this user had done. I wished to perserve the article, in fear of losing what I had spent a considerable time on. The edits of the second user, unfortunately, took the misunderstanding to a new level. The user gutted the article, leaving only the very first sentence intact. I will not speak ill of his/her intentions, but I believe this user had no right to gut the article without explaination. A simple explaination would have sufficed, and this situation probably would have never arisen.

Decline reason:

This template is to be used only for unblock requests. Make any statements you think are necessary on the article talk page after the block expires. Sandstein 06:27, 17 March 2009 (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.

Regarding Charles E. Brown

I am writing regarding the article "Charles E. Brown Middle School". As you might know, several users (including myself) were engaged in an "edit war". I wish to make this fact clear. In no way had I rewritten or overtook another user's edits in a way to benefit my own opinion. Like I explained several times to these users and administrators, this has all been a misunderstanding. I undid several edits since I did not find them particulary appropriate. These users made drastic and unnecessary changes to the article, yet provided no explainations for their actions. This is why I felt compelled to return it to the state it once was in an effort to stabalize the situation and to come to speaking terms. However, these users misinterpreted this act, and proceded to gutting the article, leaving only the first sentence intact. I believe these users should have at least taken the time to sort out the bits they felt were innappropriate instead of gutting it completely.

--Jake Z. (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative IP Account

Sorry. I forgot to sign in a few times. I hope you understand. --Jake Z. (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Charles E. Brown Middle School, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 13:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that anything concerning the article should be written in an objective, third-person view. However, I no longer go to that school, and anything related is not directly affecting me. I also think I should have the right to edit it as a Wikipedian, and not as a former student of Charles E Brown. Still, I will almost certainly need confidence on this particular situation, and will rely on you as much as you will trust me. --Jake Z. (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello, this is incorrect, please read WP:VANDALISM. Also, please take heed of the above; just because you no longer go to the school does not mean that you no longer have a COI. You have a conflict of interest that isn't going to go away. Please understand this. Also, you have introduced informal language, incorrect spelling, and an abundance of general errors that need to be removed post haste. I will be reporting you to the appropriate noticeboards, and I shall notify you of this. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of Interest does not mean that I cannot write about my hometown, or a certain plant species I am rather fond to. So why doesn't this apply to a former middle school? I am not part of an organization that is trying to promote its interest. Also, does grammar and some informal writing deserve an article to be gutted? And in WP: Vandalism, it states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I would reconsider both of our priorities: I need to fix these isues in the article and you need to help. Complaining is not getting us anywhere. --Jake Z. (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enigmaman has submitted a WP:COIN report here. Feel free to wade in. Remember: You don't have to start a new section when you're replying to someone, remember to just put a : (colon) in front of your paragraph to indent it. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, please discuss changes that are likely to be contentious on the article's talk page. Reverting good-faith edits, especially with an edit summary of "I will treat unexplained actions as vandalism" is not helpful to establishing consensus. It is clear that more than one other editor is viewing some of your edits as problematic. The right course of action is to enter into a discussion with them on the talk page rather than trying to preserve your preferred version via constant reverting. Arakunem^Talk 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Barack Obama, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. The edit(s) in question are as follows: [1] --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circum-Pacific War listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Circum-Pacific War. Since you had some involvement with the Circum-Pacific War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]