User talk:Jagordon81

July 2016
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Democratic National Committee— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please avoid changing "Trump" to "Drumpf"
Hi. In one of your recent edits, you changed the word "Trump" to "Drumpf". I assume that this was unintentional and caused by having the Drumpfinator extension enabled. To avoid this kind of mistake in the future, please disable the extension before editing articles that mention Trump. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Please stop adding poorly-sourced content; see No_original_research. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

wow real constructive - first I'm told I need second source and then its removed because the second source is not good enough - the bottom line is this case is real I state no opinion about it just state it is real so how does one put facts on wiki without getting blocked? you could try to help people get better at this instead of just blocking them -frustrated user
 * Once again, you may want to try reading WP:PRIMARY. No one said anything about "second" sources. It doesn't matter if you have twenty primary sources. Lawsuits get files all the time, and most of them aren't notable. You need third-party, reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

the last guy said that I need two ref- i give up I clearly have no idea what I'm doing or understand the purpose of this site and now I'm blocked anyway.

August 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. It's still an edit war if you return two weeks later and add material that has already been rejected. Let's make it clear, there's nothing showing the notability of this lawsuit. All the sources are primary sources. oknazevad (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

There is no dispute? I removed the ref that was the issue, so why was it removed this time?
 * Do not use primary sources. You've been told this multiple times. --Neil N  talk to me 15:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

How is a court docket a primary source? Please know I want to do this correct, ohnoitsjamie pointed me towards the WP issue, so I removed the trustvote link and another user helped me by adding the comment on the end for me. I in no way wanted to start an edit war! please help me understand, thanks.
 * Did you actually read WP:PRIMARY? "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment." --Neil N  talk to me 15:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

okay now I'm getting somewhere - I was looking at my source not the content of the post, I can make edits to fix that. thanks

This is just a docket number and info on who filed the case there is no first hand account involved, so I still don't understand how this is a primary source. And please note I am not editing it again until I feel confident it is correct, so please don't block me I want to collaborate. And telling me I've been warned several times feels threatening I am new at this and would like some constructive help asking me to read the same thing again does not help me understand. Before I got blocked because I undid the edit, I realize the error of my ways - I was new at this. So I took the time to collaborate with some wiki peers and edited my original post to fix the issues ohnoitsjamie had. After the edits I post it again with confidence and immediately accused of an edit war. I really feel like I'm being attacked here and all I want is to contribute :(
 * If it's "just a docket number and info on who filed the case" then how do you know what the case is about? --Neil N  talk to me 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay now I'm getting somewhere it is the content of the post not just the source that is the issue. I know because I read the docket. I see now what the issue is, thank you.
 * You're welcome. I'm going to add some help links to this page. --Neil N  talk to me 17:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks--Jagordon81 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)