User talk:Msjenniferjames
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Msjenniferjames, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 00:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rachel Riley has been reverted.
Your edit here to Rachel Riley was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/rachelrileyrr/status/1081984876138676225?s=21) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Rachel Riley[edit]
"this content is absolutely correct for the lead" No, it's not, and any administrator will remove such a sentence as undue. Any changes to the lead regarding her antisemitism pronouncements should be subject to discussion on the Talk page and inserted via consensus. Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019[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 recently 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 any 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.
Icewhiz (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
new here... why have i been restricted?[edit]
who is this icewhizz editor <redacted> and why is he propagandising wiki content? Msjenniferjames (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it's because in one day you made 54 edits, 52 of which are on the same subject (both the article and the talk page). That can make it look like this is an SPA (single purpose account) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account has more information. Almostfm (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt - the notice above is a T:DSA, placed in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts. The notice itself is merely informational, alerting you to the presence of sanctions in the topic area of WP:BLP. Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Editing warring warning[edit]
Your recent editing history at Rachel Riley 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 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 you 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.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
January 2019[edit]
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en
wikimedia.org.Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).