User talk:Jacobj6

June 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oklahoma City bombing. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   15:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

July 2022
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  01:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:RFPP board
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You’re proving my point. Block someone if you don’t like the facts they state. Jacobj6 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the warning about being blocked is more about you posting your opinions on a page where one requests pages be unprotected. They aren't objecting to your views, they're objecting to you disrupting a page where those views shouldn't be in the first place since you aren't actually requesting that a page be unprotected. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * LOl incorrect.
 * Why do you not let people add to your little circle of one sided facts? We can cite a bunch of other facts, but you don't want that. You will not allow people to post and cite facts. You even state that "those shouldn't be there in the first place." My point exactly. Believe your own little circle jerk, but heaven forbid if people outside your circle fest provide insight and facts that you find inconvenient to your narrative. Disgrace to free journalism! It's so sad that you all think you're the 'arbiter of truth' and masquerade around as a free and open collective of factual information, when in reality, it's actually the exact opposite.  OPEN THESE ARTICLES UP AND LET PEOPLE ADD TRUE AND REAL FACTS TO THEM, WITH PROPERLY SOURCED AND CITED REFERRENCES!  You won't, cuz you're too afraid to let ALL the truth be printed. So sad! 69.145.33.121 (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reality happens to have a very strong liberal bias, and we're not a news outlet - we're an encyclopaedia that happens to have little tolerance for fringe viewpoints that only divorced-from-reality echo-chambers on the left and right are giving oxygen. Nowhere do we claim to be the arbiters of truth, other than by cranks who don't know how Wikipedia works and don't give a fuck about how it works except to try and exploit it, reality and contentious topic designations be damned. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 06:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow! Pump the brakes buddy. Didn’t know Wikipedia was run and locked down by crazed extremists.
 * Reality is facts matter, not opinions. Why don’t you allow ALL the facts into your very biased “encyclopedia”? Jacobj6 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)