User talk:Jisteele

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

September 2013
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Moreno Valley, California does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! ''Please, this applies to all of the various changes you've made. A short note as to how the figure was obtained/calculated or from what source is important for other editors to understand why the change was made. Thanks.'' – S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, " ". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Castaic, California, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You have been inserting unsourced census information into many different articles. Kindly go back and revert all that you have done, or else provide your sources. Thank you.'' GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for two weeks, for disruptive editing. You have been told that adding unsourced content to articles is unacceptable, yet you have continued to add highly dubious content to articles, without ever giving any indication whatever where the information comes from. In a number of cases I have searched for confirmation that the figures you give do indeed come from the census. Not only have I not found confirmation even in a single case, but in some cases I have found sources which directly contradict what you have claimed. It may be that the sources I have seen have somehow misreported the census figures, and you have a more reliable source, but if so you need to say what that source is, so that your changes are verifiable. It is a fundamental Wikipedia policy that any article content which is challenged, or which is likely to be challenged, must be provided with reliable sources. The length of the block takes into account the fact that there have been several gaps in your editing of a week to two weeks, so that any shorter block might be over before you attempt to edit again, which might mean that you would not even realise you had been blocked, so that you would not get the message. I would be happy for the block length to be significantly reduced if you can indicate that have read this notice, understand why you were blocked, and will try from now on to comply with Wikipedia's policy on the need for reliable sources. If that is so, you may request an unblock by adding the text below this notice (Replacing the words "Your reason here" with your explanation why you think an unblock would be reasonable), but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hacienda Heights, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Mendoza. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
An editor has contacted me with concerns about your editing, so I have extensively checked your editing history. I have found that you have made huge numbers of edits which have given a general reference to a web site, not to particular pages which contain the information you have added to articles, which makes it difficult to check the sources. However, I have put some time and effort into doing that checking, and I have been unable to find confirmation for any of the edits about population statistics which you have made, and in a number of occasions I have found that the source you cite actually contradicts your edits. What is more, I have found that in cases that I have checked, you have contradicted your own claims. Here are a couple of examples: (1) In this edit you wrote "According to the 2010 United States Census, San Pasqual had a median household income of $96,938", and in this one you claimed that the same census gave the same figure as $99,688, but in fact the source you cite gives the figure as $79,643. (2) In this edit you wrote "According to the 2010 United States Census, South San Gabriel had a median household income of $61,641", but in this one you gave the figure as $61,528, but in fact the source which you cite gives the figure as $60,338.

If these were a couple of isolated incidents, it would be possible that it was simply a matter of a couple of mistakes (although it would be strange that in each case you "corrected" your mistake with another mistaken value). However, they are not isolated incidents: extensive sampling of your editing history reveals that almost all of your editing, over the whole history of the account, has been of this kind. My first thought was to post to this page asking you to explain your editing, but further investigation left no doubt that this is deliberate vandalism: moreover, you were asked over two years ago to explain your editing, and chose not to do so: the only change you made was that, following the short block for failure to provide sources, you took to adding phony references to sources which do not support your edits, no doubt in the expectation that it would be unlikely that anyone would check the references, particularly since, as I said above, the "references" are jsut a link to a web site, not to pages giving the particular information you gave, making it difficult to check. Unfortunately, your expectation was fulfilled for over two years, but now the party is over: an editor has finally raised the alarm over your vandalism, I have checked and confirmed that the alarm is justified, and this account has been blocked from editing again, this time indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)