User talk:Darryl.jensen

Welcome to my page![edit]

Now get lost

April 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil in an edit summary. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Specifically, adding the comment buffoonery to an edit summary. – S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Darryl.jensen. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! – S. Rich (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darryl.jensen! Questions about the above “Alert”? I wrote a quick & dirty FAQ—check it out here. If you have any questions about policies or editing or anything else just ask me on my talk page :-) – Lionel^(talk) 11:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of You Don't Speak for Me[edit]

Hello, I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Talk:You Don't Speak for Me because you placed the tag on the article's talk page instead of the article itself. I would have no objection to you properly placing the tag on the article page per policy. Thanks, —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus"[edit]

Please do not claim that there's a consensus for a change when there obviously isn't.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the same to you - why don't you go play in traffic Darryl.jensen (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc at Talk:Center for Immigration Studies[edit]

Please move your comments to the threaded discussion section, the support and oppose sections are not meant to also have threaded discussion. Thansk. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Kitty Empire[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Kitty Empire, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Darryl.jensen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Darryl.jensen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hebrew Israelites[edit]

Hi Darryl.

I think that the BHIs are far too diverse for there to be any justification or reliable references for pinning anti-Semitism and other racism on the whole lot of them. Some BHI groups clearly are/were anti-Semitic but other groups have tried to build relations with Jewish groups or at least to avoid conflict with Jews. We need to mention extremism only as far as genuinely reliable sources support it. This is similar to the issues we face writing about radical Islam. Terrorism is a serious issue which we have to cover but it can't be pinned on the religion as a whole. This is primarily a matter of fairness but there are also good tactical reasons to avoid over-broad characterisations. If we write that "group X are all bad" then that can encourage members of group X who are not bad to feel a common cause with those who are as they are all being tarred with the same brush. We can actually make the very thing we are decrying worse if we decry it ineptly.

I'm not going to hand out any warning templates here but I do think that you need to be more careful that what you add to the article actually reflects the reference material and that the reference material is regarded as WP:RS. I'm not sure if your last reference was RS but, even it was, I feel you went beyond what it actually said. Specifically I can't see where you got the phrase "watchdog groups" from.

So, I have no objection to increasing the coverage of the specific BHI groups who are anti-Semitic (so long as it doesn't spiral out of control and fill up the whole article) but it has to be clear in identifying which specific groups it is talking about and not flinging accusations at other groups who, while their religious views may be unorthodox, are not deserving of that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may not have seen it, but the Religious Tolerance website's article about Black Hebrews is an ancient copy of Wikipedia's article (you have to scroll to the very bottom of the page). Such websites, called mirrors and forks of Wikipedia, cannot be cited as reliable sources. (It would be like consulting yourself for a second opinion.) Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

That's your fourth revert, Darryl - you're welcome to expand upon it, but either put back "anti-immigration" or I'll file a 3RR report for edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also you need to put back the NPR source: "So I've been seeing these TV ads that have been showing - by NumbersUSA, which is an anti-immigration group" is literally right there in the source. You clearly didn't read the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if you do not self-revert by 16:30 UTC I will file a complaint at the 3RRNB for your violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of making Wikipedia a better place, I self-reverted. I still do not believe that your sources support labeling them an "anti-immigration" group. Respectable outlets such as the NY Times and Washington Post describe them as an org that "supports low-levels of immigration" or "advocates reducing immigration levels", never as anti-immigration. I'll grant that the NPR piece does include them after re-reading it (my mistake): but its not NPR describing them that way, and that is very important for this debate. Its the opinion of the person they are interviewing. Darryl.jensen (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

You currently appear to be 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. 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:

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 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.

(It's especially uncool to warn another editor about edit warring at the same time that you're edit warring with that exact same editor!) ElKevbo (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that he was the one pushing changes without any consensus I really don't care. Darryl.jensen (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yearly awareness renewal[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI noticeboard[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Center_for_Immigration_Studies Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

get a life Darryl.jensen (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

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) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a joke Darryl.jensen (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]