User talk:Jd1schroeder

January 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adam Schiff. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Moxy 🍁 19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for American politics[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. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people[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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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. Bishonen | talk 17:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bourbon whiskey. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kimberly klacik[edit]

The article Kimberly klacik has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced biography of a living person; also fails WP:NPOL until if and when she wins state-wide office

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Klacik moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Kimberly Klacik, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Roller26 (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Kimberly Klacik has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kimberly Klacik. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kimberly Klacik for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kimberly Klacik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Klacik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SecretName101 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Buffaboy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Shooting of Jacob Blake seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Buffaboy ^talk 16:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffaboy, you are being very kind. Jd1schroeder, consider this your only warning for a racist BLP violation, and consider that if an admin had seen this edit and reverted it, you would probably have been blocked already. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your tasteless comment on Buffaboy's talk page. Do NOT treat Wikipedia as a place where you can vent those kinds of opinions. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinions were vented, at least not on our side, merely adding substantiated accounts regarding a recent incident that took place. Leaving out vital information only creates a false description which will only perpetuate more falsehoods. Just let the record show we tried to do the right thing and saw confrontation and resistance. Jd1schroeder (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jd1schroeder Who is "we"? Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the foregoing discussion, and compliant with WP:ARBAP2, Jd1schroeder is indefinitely topic-banned from editing in the area of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed to cover individuals and events in the United States of current political significance, generally. Jd1schroeder remains free to work in all areas of the encyclopedia not related to this area. This topic ban and its parameters may be appealed to WP:ANI; the ban must be observed during the pendency of any such appeal. BD2412 T 18:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we wouldn’t expect anything but a ban. How else will the falsehood continue to spread? You’re actions today are reprehensible and symbolic of a modern-day book burning. You should be ashamed of yourselves! Jd1schroeder (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there are numerous editors coming from every point of view. The vast majority of them are able to present their views without editing tendentiously. Most understand the role of consensus in developing encyclopedic content. BD2412 T 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely correct, most of us understand our role.Jd1schroeder (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violation of the topic ban placed on you for all articles under WP:ARBAP2, as you did at Talk:Shooting of Jacob Blake. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]