User talk:Lebron jay

May 2022

Thank you for contributing to the article François Duvalier. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru Noted. Thank you Sir Lebron jay (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again here and here. These sites are mirrors of Wikipedia content and notes that on the page. Also, please don't use anything by 'betascript" publishing - please note the "content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia" in the book's description. Kuru (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand i was blocked for disruptive editing and adding unacceptable links to Wikipedia pages and plead to be unblocked as I have gotten well acquainted with the types of links which i can add as references to Wikipedia pages and promise not to edit in such manner in the nearest future Lebron jay (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no problem with giving you a second chance, but you need to give us more to go on. If you could tell us, in your own words, what makes a source reliable, that would go much further toward showing that you're ready to be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2022 (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.

Hi @NinjaRobotPirate: A reliable source are those with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, these sources must be verifiable making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The best sources have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts and arguments. For example, in the article Imo Awka Festival in the second citation needed tag, after my research, i feel that this reference https://www.sunnewsonline.com/egwu-imoka-putting-awka-on-festival-map/ is ok to fit in there.

Please go through and I hope to hear from you.

You seem to be mixing together several policies. Reliable sources themselves don't have to be verifiable; content has to be verifiable. Reliable sources also don't have to make any special effort to be unbiased; Wikipedia editors do. Finally, you're copy-pasting text directly from Wikipedia policies instead of using your own words. The reason I asked you to use your own words was for you to demonstrate your understanding of the policies. I suggest you try again but this time put your answer in an unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

A reliable source is one that properly connects a fact in an article. When an editor comes across such source, the editor would properly check to see if the source is appropriate to be used on Wikipedia by knowing what Wikipedia reliable sources are and ways they can be used. Reliable sources could be in the form of books, renowned journals, news agencies mostly national news agencies, magazines and other reliable source of information/resources that could be categorized as a secondary source of information. The Editor would check if it is adequate for Wikipedia by checking to be sure it's not spam and also checking the authenticity of such organizations, also checking the fact on the source and see if it's okay to be used on the Wikipedia Article. Having checked all these, the editor will copy the link and generate the reference on Wikipedia or write it out manually by using the cite template. Lebron jay (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Voice of Clam (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

A reliable source is one that properly connects a fact in an article, thereby ensuring the authenticity of information that's being given. When an editor comes across such source, the editor would properly check to see if the source is appropriate to be used on Wikipedia by knowing what Wikipedia reliable sources are and ways they can be used. Reliable sources could be in the form of books, renowned journals, news agencies mostly national news agencies, magazines and other reliable source of information/resources that could be categorized as a secondary source of information. The Editor would check if it is adequate for Wikipedia by checking to be sure it's not spam and also checking the authenticity of such organizations, also checking the fact on the source and see if it's okay to be used on the Wikipedia Article. With my understanding of Reliable sources and learnings from subsequent trainings that were organized in my community after my block, I am confident that i would not be found wanting for disruptive editing and Vandalism. Thank you as you consider this request. Lebron jay (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is almost identical to your prior unblock request. Additionally, it doesn't really address what makes a source reliable. Yamla (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2023 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry for the previous answer, this was because i was asked to reword, my apologies and to what makes a source Credible. First off, The source should be published by a reputable publisher, such as a respected news outlet, a peer-reviewed journal, or a recognized academic institution. The author should also be an expert or authority on the subject matter.

Another factor that is considered so as to know when a source is reliable is if The information in the source is verifiable, which means that other sources should be able to confirm the information provided. This allows Wikipedia editors to fact-check the information and maintain the accuracy of the content.

Furthermore, A reliable source should present information in an objective and unbiased manner, without promoting any particular agenda or bias while making sure that these details or information are up-to-date with current facts. Please kindly consider my request. Lebron jay (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This definition of a reliable source is not correct. For one, it is impossible to be without bias, as everyone has biases. Please read reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2023 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Thanks for the correction and feedback. The reliability of a source depends on the context it is being used. Sources are reliable based on the statement being made Ina Wikipedia article. In as much as Wikipedia is required to be on a neutral ground. Sources have no need being neutral or non neutral so as to be seen as "Reliable" as both the former and latter is reliable based on the context it's being used. However, Reliable Sources are sources that are cited as backups to information given in a Wikipedia article, they are published Sources that are independent with a reputation for being accurate. Because no source is absolutely reliable, Editors must exercise astuteness in deciding the right sources to be used in a particular statement. Lebron jay (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You've made a good effort at improving your understanding of source reliability, so I've unblocked your account. Going forward, take your time when evaluating whether a source is good for what you're considering using it for, check the list of sources evaluated for general reliability, and if need be ask for some advice at the Teahouse or help desk Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Seraphimblade: for unblocking me. Thanks to your clarity gotten which will aid me to edit better now with my vivid understanding of reliable sources.

Blocked

Despite clear warnings, you've added another link to a mirror [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asamang_Tamfoe&diff=prev&oldid=1090280746 here]; this is the exact same site you were warned about before. Additionally, you've added a tremendous number of bookseller sites to articles about authors in some odd attempt to document their books. A simple ISBN template or worldcat link suffice - we don't need to spam out links to amazon or ebay. I know you're in some kind of incentivized contest, but you must slow down and carefullly evaluate each source you add. When you see people revert your edits, you need to stop and find out why. I've blocked this account until you can outline your understanding of reliable sourcing. Kuru (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my notice. I am fully aware of the sites you warned me about earlier, I must have used this sites in error. I'll read through and make necessary corrections and I will do better in the future as I go back to read on the reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia Articles. I understand that reliable sourcing involves attaching links that are trusted to provide enough and quality information about the article. Lebron jay (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's taking a long time to clean up the promotional/bookseller links you've added. I'll circle back here once I've reviewed every article. In some cases, it's going to take too long to sift through all of the garbage, so I've just rolled the article back to the state it was in before your additions. Sorry - this is just a bit of a mess. Kuru (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kuru: Thanks for all you do to ensure users do the right thing. I plead that you unblock Lebron jay. I'm sorry for all inconveniences. Due to the constant warnings and blocks, we have decided to withdraw from editing Wikipedia for #1Lib1Ref editathon because if our members/users are yet to understand what Wikipedia's reliable source is all about, then there's no need to edit/add citations now or in the future. Please reconsider. Thanks! Olugold (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for all the inconveniences caused and promise it won't repeat itself. Lebron jay (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that; since I've had to spend hours cleaning this up, will you please outline how you will approach sourcing in the future? Or was your only motivation to contribute the contest that Olugold is alluding to? Kuru (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day @Kuru: I have been contributing to Wikimedia projects not because of any contest but because of my interest in taking part in Wikimedian activities and helping the community. I have already pulled out of the contest that Olugold previously referred to. Even if there is no contest, I would hope to keep editing Wikipedia in the future.I have had series of trainings and resources as a new user. I will make sure I go through the links, resources and hope to be better in the future. As a new user in my learning process, all my experiences here are part of the learning process. Olugold has agreed to re-train all the participants and hope to get better after the training. For now, i am withdrawing from editing the English Wikipedia. Lebron jay (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of reliable source is not correct.. Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]