User talk:Jbottero

Hi Jbottero,

An edit I think you made to Misty Upham's page (Revision as of 22:34, 16 October 2014)is not completely accurate and is not substantiated by the reference. As the page is now semi-protected I cannot change it. Could you please have a look.

It's the bit that states that the 'police announced that they had found a body' whereas the family have complained about inaction by the police and that they organised the search and found the body.

JDE 188.164.224.203 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Knight

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You keep taging the article with a "who" tag to "Stanford GSB" despite that being defined in the 2d paragraph at the very top ("Stanford Graduate School of Business (Stanford GSB)"). The tag is inappropriate and your continued insistence to have it in the article is vandalism. Similarly, UO is already defined above, so you don't do it again. Then, linking Frohnmayer again in the same section and introducing additional link to UO and OHSU violates our linking guideline. Lastly, unless you want to add sources, leave the BLP sources tag, as there are three citation needed tags in the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Valfontis (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Church and Bamboo and Blood

With regards to your comment on James Church's Talk Page - Pyongyang is not New York. The comparison must be taken within context. (I have been to Pyongyang) Jbottero (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Kshama Sawant does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Template:POV. It says "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third warning As explained at Template:POV, merely slapping a POV tag on an article without explanation is not helpful. How is anyone supposed to know what you'd like to see changed if you won't tell us? Please go to Talk:Kshama Sawant and explain what is wrong before replacing this tag. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kshama Sawant, you may be blocked from editing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding . The thread is Request to cease drive-by POV tagging. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

I've giving you a final warning over the notice tagging. You have yet to discuss what concerns you have over Kshama Sawant and no one should have to engage in trying to guess what "POV" issues you see in the article when you refuse to tell anyone about them. Explain your concern at the talk page. As such, if you put in a POV tag back on Kshama Sawant again without discussing it first, you will be blocked. - Ricky81682 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring, as you did at Kshama Sawant. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Trinity (nuclear test), did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plantsurfer 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kshama Sawant, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DO NOT post any more POV tags on Kshama Sawant until you go to Talk:Kshama Sawant and explain in words what your actual problem is. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring, as you did at Kshama Sawant. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand what would possess you to return after two week block and start again on the edit warring. Even for someone who agrees with that the article needs work, your antics are not helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]