User talk:Jamaal5

November 2022

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Robbie Savage, you removed content without adequately 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. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: I fixed the article by undoing a large controversial edit Jamaal5 (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I also came here to ask you to provide better edit summaries. You mostly seem to say "fix", which is not informative. For instance, in your edits to Black hat (computer security). Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg: well I just go around and fix articles, and I don’t know how to easily explain most of the individual changes in detail (or it will take a much longer time for me to think and explain that way), so it usually only seems helpful or necessary if the changes are disputed Jamaal5 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Black hat (computer security). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Urbanec: I fixed the article by undoing a major edit that used Wikipedia as a source multiple times Jamaal5 (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Black hat (computer security), you may be blocked from editing. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN JTK: please look at the edit, it uses Wikipedia as a source multiple times, and Wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source in and of itself Jamaal5 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamaal5: I have examined your edit and out of the 16 references that you removed from the article, only 2 were Wikipedia references. Those could have been fixed individually without removing all the references from the article.

Please understand that verifiability is one of the key aspects of Wikipedia.

While I acknowledge the fact that you wish to improve Wikipedia, I suggest you go through the editing guide once & get familiar with editing on Wikipedia.

Thanks. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN JTK: ok thanks for the advice, I will try to remove the Wikipedia references individually. Jamaal5 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Black hat (computer security). Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 17:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Layah50: please look at the edit, it uses Wikipedia as a source multiple times, and Wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source in and of itself Jamaal5 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamaal5, Agreed that the Wikipedia links do not belong there however, you have removed the other non-Wikipedia links; making the entire article unsourced.

Please be more careful,

Thank you. Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 17:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Layah50: ok thanks for the advice, I will try to remove the Wikipedia references individually. Jamaal5 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamaal5! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: I provided replies to other editors and also added the dispute to teahouse and admin noticeboard Jamaal5 (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good, though probably the article's talk page should have been your first choice. Now you should keep in mind the three-revert rule, as you're already up at the maximum of three reverts. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: ok thanks for the advice, I will remember to use the article talk page next time during an edit war Jamaal5 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamaal5 you do not seem to be following up with your promise. You have edit warred here and here, and the talk page has nothing from you on it. CC: @Maddy from Celeste TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheManInTheBlackHat: ok thanks for the reminder, I will go to the article talk page and user talk page to discuss the dispute Jamaal5 (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Should reflect your editing. Your wp:ES of "Fix" to IBM alignment models I don't think is a very a good description of your edit. I strongly recommend using an ES that fits your edit. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: I fixed the article by undoing an edit that blanked an entire section of sourced content Jamaal5 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix. I recommend you give more details in the ES so others understand your edits. Especially when lots of text and cites appear or disappear. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jamaal5!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are interested in reverting vandalism. I suggest you use tools such as Twinkle and RedWarn to make reverting vandalism easier. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]