User talk:Jebcubed/Archives/2019/March

FartyMcMuffinPants
I'm only a clerk in training and I haven't been assigned this case so this is just my personal opinion... I agree, they're more than likely the same person. BUT, neither account has edited yet. How are you deciding they're WP:ILLEGIT accounts rather than WP:VALIDALT? A little WP:AGF goes a long way, and a uw-agf-sock (easily done via Twinkle) may be more productive. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your Sloan Museum Revision
Hey, I wanted to ask your reasoning for pulling that last big edit to the Sloan Museum page. I would've tweaked those edits, but they are factual. The page in its post-revision form is basically outdated. I was going to undo the edits and make additional changes, but I wanted to reach out first in case you know something I don't. Thanks. MitchellWeasel (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)MitchellWeasel
 * , I reverted those edits because they appeared promotional in nature, and, based on the user's name, appeared to represent a conflict of interest. If you were to restore them and tweak them to be non-promotional, I wouldn't oppose it. Thanks for letting me know first. Jeb3  Talk at me here  14:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's about what I figured, but I wanted to check-in. I'll make the necessary tweaks, edits, and make sure the information is cited. Thanks Jeb. MitchellWeasel (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)MitchellWeasel

Carbon cycle
Hi Jebcubed, sorry for not explaining why I deleted all of the information. I wrote the deep carbon cycling subpage but received a recommendation from my professor to have it as a new page, so I just left the first paragraph and moved the rest to a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjilrm (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, just remember when editing to explain what you do. otherwise it comes off as something less constructive. Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages! (four tildes, ~ ~ ~ ~, but no spaces) Jeb3  Talk at me here  15:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Page : Vokkaliga
Jebcubed The concerned page is being vandalised by User : Aatoturk. I have not completely removed his additions, only those additions which come from a spurious newspaper article which itself has not listed any sources or citations.

He is appropriating Gowda(surname) to one particular community. No government citations have this particular data that he is quoting. I have attached a government gazette to it. I will get you more citations to prove my stand. Its also on his part to provide a valid source to back up his claim.

And he has been found vandalising the related page of Gowda(surname). Please take action against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gksampath (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring, original research
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.
 * 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.

Please don't start edit wars across multiple articles. If you have sources to back up your claims please present them on talk. -69.119.170.192 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not started edit wars at all. From what I saw, you were making changes without consensus, and have made no attempt to resolve the issue on the article's talk page, save calling the other user a sock puppeteer. Jeb3  Talk at me here  20:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? It was you who reverted the article back to a vandalized edit. All I did was restore it to it's original. You reverted to an edit that removed tons of info, specifically that of Dmowkski's opposition to Pilsudksi's vision of Prometheism. You also restored a dead source that is not even a source in the first place and that was previously removed by a different user prior.. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * you have made no consensus on the talk page. You also are the one who started the edit war in the first place. please, build consensus before editing. Jeb3  Talk at me here  21:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, again. Simply calling for a consensus does not entitle you to remove information. Also, how did I start the edit war? Unless you are confusing me for TU-nor. It was him that deliberately removed information in the first place, specifically about Prometheism. Restoring edits =/= vandalism, it's the contrary. It was you who reverted the edit back to the vandalized one, not me. -69.119.170.192 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

3RR
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 BRD 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you've violated this rule. You've made more than 3 edits on the same page within 24 hours. Yet, you warn me? Jeb3  Talk at me here  21:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one who keeps reverting to vandalized edits.. -69.119.170.192 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

More attention?
First off, your work as Wiki moderator is highly valuable and much appreciated. I know errors are inevitable when processing enormous amounts of text, but please be pay more attention before removing tiny insignificant additions to non-essential wiki articles, especially is that is a reference link requested by another moderator. The experience of getting your tiny article addition removed instantly without any valid reason is highly frustrating, especially for a new Wiki user, which is likely to turn the new user away from ever contributing to Wiki again.

Thanks again for what you are doing, significant Wiki articles really need that, while zealously moderating of tiny additions to insignificant articles can only steal your (and the contributor's) time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.43.5 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , as a note, the reason I was reverting your edits was because the source cited was Facebook. I was under the impression that Facebook was not considered a reliable source. After reviewing the guidelines though, I found that it can be used in BLP articles. Sorry about that. Jeb3  Talk at me here  17:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi, Jebcubed. Thanks for watching out for advertising, but we don't go for speedy deletion where there is an acceptable previous version to fall back on, as with Two Maids & A Mop Bhunacat10 (talk),  15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ip
"My main reasons for doing this come from the fact that schools teach that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source" And you do this by deleting comments that point out where wikipedia is being unreliable? Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.11.81 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Talk pages are not forums. They are for discussion of the page, not for telling about Wikipedia's reliability. Jeb3  Talk at me here  13:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)