User talk:Kayjewel

Concern regarding Draft:Nicole & O.J. (2019)
Hello, Kayjewel. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Nicole & O.J. (2019), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Nicole & O.J. (2019)


Hello, Kayjewel. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Nicole & O.J. (2019).

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited O. J. Simpson murder case, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Order ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/O._J._Simpson_murder_case check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/O._J._Simpson_murder_case?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello, I'm Indignant Flamingo. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Camila Morrone, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Indignant Flamingo (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to O. J. Simpson murder case, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning
Declaring that "Wikipedia is run by racist white people" is no way to get content changed. Convince people that the sources support your assertions, you don't get to make accusations like that.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for the O.J. Simpson case is absolutely run by racist white people. One section on the page literally described the mostly minority jury as less educated and intelligent than white jurors and none of you did anything about it. Kayjewel (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * So fix it, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is sourced to mainstream media by design, and stop with the accusations..  Acroterion   (talk)   02:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I did today because on May 2, 2020 when someone else tried to remove the line about the minority jury being less educated, Sundayclose reverted their edit and said it was factual information. None of you corrected them or gave him/her a warning for this. Kayjewel (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It was an IP that removed your edit, and they were wrong to do so. Sundayclose had nothing to do with that. Take it to the talkpage, and be respectfu of other editors. They're trying to get it right too.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind also that you must work within the manual of style and overall editing policies - we generally refer to people by their last name, not as "Nicole" - it's more respectful of the subject, and "New York Times selling" makes no sense - it would be "New York Times best-selling," but only if it's significant that the Times list is important compared to others. Use the talkpage, and don't resort to name-calling.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

May 21*

This Wikipedia page is for the O.J. Simpson murder case, yet is overwhelmingly slanted in favor of the Prosecution. Whenever someone tries to make it more even or add a different perspective, their edits get reverted. Kayjewel (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the edit mistakes, I got it. Either way you don’t have to worry about me, I will no longer make edits on the O.J. murder case page. Kayjewel (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that there are indeed people who abuse Wikipedia, and who have malicious, and sometimes racist motives for doing so. I'm an administrator, and I deal with people like that all the time. However, it doesn't help the project to make scattershot accusations of bad faith, and - worse - racism - assume good faith is a foundational principle, and you've made hurtful accusations against at least two other editors who don't deserve it, and who are upset by that. It doesn't help to declare bigotry, or Communism, or fascism, or sexism, or whatever tp be behind the edits of everybody who disagrees with someone's edits.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not mean to hurt yours or anyone’s feelings but I called it how I saw it. I saw blatant racism on the page and reacted strongly, I’ll admit. I’m just tired of racism being directed towards the jury and how it’s considered acceptable to refer to them as uneducated. Kayjewel (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to stoke the flames of this issue any more than necessary, but as has been pointed out already on this talk page, the content of Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources, so if there is racism on the page (and I don't believe there is) it's your interpretation of what the sources state; it's not Wikipedia's opinions. In the case of the education of the jury, it was a consultant for Simpson's defense team that the article refers to, not the opinion of Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor. You can make some good contributions here, but you have to realize that articles do not (or at least should not) speak in Wikipedia's voice; they summarize the sources. If you think there is racism beyond what the sources say, I encourage you to discuss that on the article's talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you’re saying and I appreciate the feedback because I am new to this. As far as starting discussions on the talk page, I’m good. I don’t believe it’s worth it. Kayjewel (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history at O. J. Simpson murder case 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Dean, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East of Eden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Given how actively you are editing, it is probably appropriate to remove the "Retired" template from your userpage. Thanks, and happy editing! Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Priscilla article overwriting
Please do not overwrite an existing article with unrelated content as you did at Priscilla. If the topic is notable, then you may create a new article such as Priscilla (film). Bamyers99 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. Kayjewel (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Priscilla (Sofia Coppola film)
Hello Kayjewel,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Priscilla (Sofia Coppola film) for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit edit the page] and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 VickKiang  (talk)  01:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)