User talk:Jim Pleiades Hawkins

Audience ratings and Wikipedia
Hi. I wanted to explain why I revert your edit to The Pacifier. In it, you added several audience ratings. Unfortunately, we don't track such ratings on Wikipedia. Per our guideline on how to write film articles, these user-submitted ratings are considered to be too unreliable to use. They are easy to game, and dedicated users can easily use automated scripts ("bots") to influence the ratings. So, we instead use professional polls, such as CinemaScore. Generally, though, Wikipedia articles are written according to the consensus of professional film critics. This sometimes leads to a disconnect between audience reaction and critical appraisal, but if this is to be mentioned in the article, we'd need a reliable source to comment on the situation. This happens sometimes, as in the Netflix film Bright, where we cite newspaper articles that discuss this disconnect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, in, you removed content cited to scholars, dismissing their arguments. This is known on Wikipedia as "blanking", and it is disruptive.  You can't simply censor the work of academics because you disagree with them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The New World Order report fails our criteria for use as a source
See WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. If you really think it does, you can ask at WP:RSN. So does "Unam Sanctam Catholicam". Please read the links I've provided to learn what sorts of sources can be used. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe‎
Please see the WP:PSCI policy about making it obvious when a topic is about pseudoscience. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 09:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Abijah
Hello Jim Pleiades Hawkins, thank you for your contributions at Abijah of Judah. I just want you to know that using Wikipedia as a source is prohibited per WP:CIRC. Could you perhaps provide a different source? An academic source? You can search at Google Books for this. Jerm (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on White privilege; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (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.

Discretionary sanctions on racial topics
Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Hi Jim Pleiades Hawkins! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at White privilege that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alex Antic. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

March 2023
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I inserted a fact. Facts aren't defamatory. Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dates
Why did you do these? ITBF (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I updated the length of tenures. Jim Pleiades Hawkins (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The templates update automatically, are you planning on updating every day? ITBF (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)