User talk:JJDoolan

JJDoolan, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi JJDoolan!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on George Stinney. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at George Stinney. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at George Stinney shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TJRC (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Stinney. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restating this to make certain that you understand that there's a problem with changes on this scale without discussion or consensus. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from George Stinney with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a series of small edits which were all explained in the edit comment. Someone reverted me for no reason, so I restored my edits. To see the reasoning for each one you need to view the individual edit comments. JJDoolan (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JJDoolan, you are risking a block for long-term edit warring. See WP:AN3#User:JJDoolan reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). There may still be time for you to reply at the noticeboard and promise to stop the war. For example, you can agree to make no further changes to the article until you get a prior consensus for them on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that you should self-revert your latest change so we can discuss, instead off continuing to edit-war. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to revert my changes, and there is no reason to lie and call my changes reverts when it is my changes which have been reverted. JJDoolan (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed some of your concerns and am prepared to continue, provided you are willing to collaborate and to stop reverting to your preferred version against consensus. You are not entitled to revert four times in a single day because you are convinced that you are right, or that current sources are wrong. Stop edit-warring, please engage politely and productively on the talkpage and we'll see where that leads us. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People are reverting my edits. I did not revert anyone's edits. I only undid the unexplained and unjustified reversions done to my 15 small, sourced, and explained edits. JJDoolan (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about this: this controversy arose when you made this edit, reverting 57 intermediate revisions by 19 users, representing three months of work, as pointed out on the talk page. It is completely disingenuous to say "I did not revert anyone's edits". TJRC (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this is some sort of personal vendetta against me because I made a revert which got undone in the past? The issue we are discussing now is the fact that you are cooperatively squashing my 15 well sourced and completely justified edits. If you can articulate an issue with any of my edits specifically feel free to do it on the talk page. JJDoolan (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vendetta. I'm pointing out that your claim not to be reverting edits is false. Your reversion of edits is what has started all of this.

What we want is for you to stop edit-warring and substituting your preferred text in the face of community opposition. You need to read, you need to understand, and you need to follow, WP:CONSENSUS. Even after your behavior has been brought to the AN, you continue in it, and you somehow believe that your preferred version should be the starting point from which discussion should begin, rather than the status quo from many other editors.

That's not how it works here. You made your edits, you've been reverted (by more editors than just me). It's now up to you to discuss your proposed changes and make the case for them, not the other way around. TJRC (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to "revert" 2 months ago actually just undid a series of reverts by a person who systematically purged the article of crucial information like facts about the murder weapon. There is a very clear bias here. People who want to push a certain point of view are allowed to do so, cant be reverted, don't have to discuss their changes, and don't have to worry about their edits even when they aren't supported by sources. When I try to fix up the article to accurately reflect sources my edits get reverted with no discussion.JJDoolan (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're not getting it. Again, read, understand, and follow WP:CONSENSUS. TJRC (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus when an editor systematically purged the George Stinney article of any mention that Stinney knew the location of the murder weapon. Nobody worried about consensus when I tried to revert his changes. I get it very well, biased editors want to skew the article to suit their political views. They are selectively applying rules to preserve their biased POV article. JJDoolan (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at George Stinney

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JJDoolan reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]