User talk:Jarra78

Welcome!

Hello, Jarra78, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Simply south (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of 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)
 * Manual of Style

Greetings & welcome
Greetings Jarra78, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for getting those references up over at the Newcastle upon Tyne article. Have fun editing, Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tip: please use an edit summary whenever possible. Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to renew my request for an edit summary. Something simple like "add reference about theatre" would be fine and helps other editors to see what's changed. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You may have noticed that you are now "confirmed" which means your edits on Newcastle upon Tyne‎ are accepted automatically. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gary Speed
I reverted your edits because they are not neutral. Basically, if Speed has said something you need to quote it and give context rather than writing it as factual information. Adam4267 (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT add it again tonight. Wikipedia has a three revert rule and it is possible that either of us could be given into trouble if someone thought this was an edit war. Adam4267 (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also when you tried to put it in again it was still in a non-neutral format. As I've said you need write it as a quote and put it in context, rather than just writing the way it is now. Adam4267 (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Adam thanks for the reply, no bad blood m8.

Hey Adam m8, Lets keep to the structure of your argument:

If you look at my input, '''-it is quoted (you claimed it was not) (BTW all my sourced references from the 29/11/2011 are quoted, check up),

-and it is from a neutral source; fourfourtwo is neutral(you claimed it was not),

and it is quoted from an independant interview and factual(and it is not spin biased, he recored what Mr speed said, yet you claimed it was biased.

E.g if I sad that "water was colourless," you recorded it and said I said "water was colourless" and you published that I said "water was colourless"; then logically no one can claim bias. As you cant spin a side of a story solely from a recorded quote m8. You cant spin a fact from a quote. You can spin around facts, but you cant spin a fact from a quote, if you solely provide the quote)'''.

Anyway thank you for the reply. All my edits to night have been quoted, check my history m8.

BTW some 'wiki' advice, you do not tell someone how to edit the wiki public resource by shouting m8. You have no authority, you just have imput and discussion like me. I also see you have put your authority on my page by claiming I'm in an edit war heh, heh, nothing changes. Yet you were the one who tried to remove my input without reason.

I'm leaving the page for tonight btw, but I find it ironic on wiki when some 'claims authority' in how they always claim there last edit is final, in the 3rr rule. You have the special claim, heh, heh. Nothing changes.

Jarra78 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoever makes the first edit is automatically going to be the person whoe breaks 3rr first, although it takes two to edit war. I think you have misunderstood me, the source you provided was fine but the way you worded your edit was not ok. Adam4267 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I was not trying to claim authority, just make you aware of the possible implications of your actions. I was worried that you might ignore me and undo again, I don't want you to get blocked for edit warring. I never said that I wasn't part of the edit war either, clearly I was but you have to know when to stop. Adam4267 (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history at Gary Speed shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. (&#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733;) 21:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC))
 * First of all don't try to claim you’re not in an edit war, if you weren’t you wouldn’t of received a warning. Adam is not warring with himself & isn't trying to claim ownership of the page he is simply trying to maintain the integrity of the article. I suggest you discuss how best to add information you've sourced on the article's talk page & stopping throwing blame back & forth. (&#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733;) 22:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC))
 * You don’t seem to get the point, I wasn't questioning your integrity you just focused on that one word & didn't seem to read the rest. I never said there was anything wrong with the info you sourced so there was no need to justify it on my talk page. But there is a concerted effort by WP:FOOTBALL members to get the Gary Speed article up to Good Article status & possible a featured article so information has to be worded perfectly, be in context & written in a neutral manner. This is why I suggested that you discuss how best to add information you've sourced on the article's talk page as Adam has experience on getting articles to good article status . I would appreciated no further correspondence on this issue as I don't want be dragged into edit war. I was just trying to be a mediator; I could have just given you the warning & said nothing. Thanks (&#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733;) 16:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Gary Speed Newcastle section...
Can I ask why you have reverted this piece?

As, as far as I can see everything I put in is factual, relevant, needed and reliable for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarra78 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, looking back i don't really agree with the content the edit added since it seems somewhat biased, though it is not in the area where it would have warranted a straight-out revert. The main issue i have with the added content is that it is entirely an opinion expressed by the player in such a way it would bias the article. Consider that every player on the team had this sentence on their own page - it would hardly be a neutral statement. Since you are not directly quoting the article but rather paraphrasing it, i would suggest rewriting it to somewhat more neutral wording. "Broke his heart" and "Was happiest" are a bit too dramatic for my tastes.


 * Also, keep in mind that it should add something to the article. The section on newcastle is five lines large and it summarizes a period of 4 years in that amount of text. Would a statement that he loved that period most really be important enough to incorporate and add a line or two for? Perhaps a statement similar to "A childhood Everton fan" in the section above would suffice to detail his love for that period. But really, I'll leave that to you, though i advice it might be convenient to raise it on the talk page. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)