User talk:TWEETY4557
Please change what is wrong on this page!! Or I will have to see a lawyer for deformation of Jackson by law you are innocent by Law until proven guilty. This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits. The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves. So you are creating a problem by leaving this.
- There are several problems with your reasoning. One, you have not provided any sources to prove these lawsuits are somehow fraudulent. Two, you are adding quotes such as "The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves." to the article, an obvious violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Three, ongoing lawsuits are frequently listed in Wikipedia articles, and these are often also protected by the Neutrality policy (therefore not being defamatory). Four, calling your lawyer won't fix much. You need to understand editors are sincerely trying to provide accurate and balanced coverage of the town, on an article the town doesn't have much control over. Five, if you are representing the town government (on Memorial Day for some reason), this is a severe violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Again, you should try to respond to other editor's reasoning if you want to convince editors here to accept your edits. Randompointofview (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
== May 2020 ==The town is innocent by Law until proven guilty. This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits. Anybody can make sue for anything but until it goes to court they are innocent by Law until proven guilty. By you allowing this you make this town look bad when it is good. So this is defamation of the town!!!!! I am Blocked because the abuse this page allows about Jackson New Jersey because it is lies. Jackson is a good town with good people. The town is innocent by Law until proven guilty. This is wrong with made up of fraudulent lawsuits. The people of Jackson are good people who pay for themselves.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jackson Township, New Jersey has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jackson Township, New Jersey was changed by TWEETY4557 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.88482 on 2020-05-25T15:03:19+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jackson Township, New Jersey. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. If you have problems with this article, you should discuss them, not try to insult everyone here. Randompointofview (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jackson Township, New Jersey, you may be blocked from editing. Hillelfrei talk 15:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I need you to answer a few questions: 1. Can you give me some sources for this not being true? (Other than personal experiences) 2. Did you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? 3. Did you realize people are complaining about people not talking about these edits on the article talk page? Randompointofview (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jackson Township, New Jersey. Hillelfrei talk 15:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please note that your edits could potentially be considered non-neutral and that ongoing lawsuits are often considered to be acceptable things to include in Wikipedia articles. Again, please discuss instead of making legal threats.Randompointofview (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent edits to Jackson Township, New Jersey could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Legal action is only allowed after taking steps to solve the issue peacefully (which normally happens). Randompointofview (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Randompointofview (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop attempting to add content in violation of Wikipedia:No original research, and discuss changes at the article talk page. You have not even tried to find a source saying the lawsuits are frauds. Insulting other editors without discussion won't fix anything.Randompointofview (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
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:TWEETY4557 reported by User:Randompointofview (Result: ). Thank you. Randompointofview (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerning Jackson Township, New Jersey
[edit]Hello, I wanted to reach out concerning the article and your edits. This isn't a warning or anything just advice. I see that you don't feel that certain information belongs on the article, which may or may not be warranted. However, the way you're going about it isn't going to get the results you want. I would suggest stopping and discussing it on the talk page, and spelling out why the information doesn't belong there and why it should be removed. That rationale can be discussed and a consensus formed regarding the information being in the article. However, constantly removing the information without discussion isn't going to get the information removed. It will however cause administrators to either block you or lock the article, to prevent the back-and-forth. If you would like, I would invite you to start a new section on the article's talk page explaining why you feel the information will be removed, and I promise that I will discuss it with an open mind and we can see if we can't figure out the best way to move forward. - Aoidh (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.