User talk:Jamarr81

Welcome!


Hello, Jamarr81, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Though the template above says that there's no implication that there's anything wrong with your editing, I do think your approach has some issues, and I've given you a couple templated notices below which I hope you'll read. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Hello, I'm Firefangledfeathers. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Calling good-faith edits "vandalism" is personal attack. See WP:NORESVAND. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jamarr81! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

3RR violation on Masculism.
Your most recent revert on Masculism violated the three-revert rule; could you self-revert it so we can talk about your proposed changes on talk? --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Masculism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia and the edits that you have described as vandalism in your edit summaries are not vandalism, but rather constitute a content dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Masculism. ''Accusing others of "being extremely disingenuous" and "maliciously gatekeeping" is unacceptable. It doesn't help when you are the one cherry-picking parts of quotations to support your own personal POV in the article. Thank you.'' —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you've admitted to using a sockpuppet to get around your block, I've blocked your sockpuppet and extended your block to a week. If you persist in this behavior or return to edit warring again, the next block will be a lot longer. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you've decided the best course of action in response to this was to engage in more sockpuppetry with User:Rramaj18, I've changed your block to indefinite. Any continued efforts like this by you will be unsuccessful. Tens of thousands of people before you have attempted to sockpuppet and bludgeon the project into their preferred versions of articles. It never works. The number of people willing to undo your actions far, far outnumber your singular effort. Your only course forward that has the slightest chance of success is to wait a long time (likely six months or more), then place an unblock request that acknowledges what you have done wrong and what your plans are moving forward. Such plans will likely need to contain a promise not to edit Masculism or related articles. Such an unblock request needs to happen on this account, on this talk page. Trying to use a sockpuppet to appeal the unblock will result in rejection and block of that sockpuppet and its addition to this category. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) I've cleared your block due to the sockpuppets not being yours, and that the original block of 36 hours for editing warring has long since expired. However, if you return to edit warring again you will be blocked again. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)