User talk:Jarebear821
Welcome![edit]
Hi Jarebare821! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Pilaz (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi and welcome, some notes[edit]
... Jarebear821. I wanted to give you friendly heads up about the WP:3RR rule: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period... Some exceptions apply of course but defending your non-vandalism editions is not one of them. Other defences of your edits could consist of talking on the talk page, as was more effective in this case.
I note your committment to ridding Wikipedia of unreliable sources. When removing the citations you should attempt to find a citation for the information. Otherwise you are just adding to the pile of 469,250 citations needed. The point of citations is to verify that the content is valid on the page. By having references for content included, readers and editors can actually see where the information is coming from. By removing these citations, the text loses it's connection to it's source and it's metric of reliability. There are instances where this will be counter productive. If you cannot find a reliable source to replace less reliable ones but still think that the information is accurate and valid for inclusion, you can try {{Better source needed}} rather than {{cn}} (Or god forbid: <sup>[citation needed]</sup>).
Reliablity in the eyes of the editor. Is dot esports unreliable [1][2] or reliable [3][4][5]? WP:VG/S says reliable. Also note that WP:PRIMARY sources such as twitter can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by persons with access to the primary source (butchered quote from WP:primary). In this edit, the primary source was likely appropriate. Make sure that you're aware of the policies regarding primary and secondary sources.
Finally, make sure that your citations support your additions. In this edit you change the H3podcast leftovers podcast from a left leaning to leftwing, citing dot esports, but the source calls the podcast politics-centric. As I slowly run out of transitional words I'd like to conclude by saying that I think your scrutiny of sources is a welcome attribute, particularly in the more unpolished internety pages. Happy editing, Pabsoluterince (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Pabsoluterince: you are certainly right that removing sources alone is problematic, and that WP:3RR applies (note that an exception for BLP violations exists). However, it's worth reminding ourselves that,in addition to the policies and guidelines you cited, WP:BLP applies to pages such as LilyPichu. In BLPs, the threshold for removal is that
contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion
, whatever the tone of the material in question is. And there is no doubt that material only supported by primary sources constitutes poorly sourced material: as WP:BLPPRIMARY states, primary sources may only be placed as a supplement ifprimary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source
. The exception to this rule is WP:ABOUTSELF, which Jarebear821 should be made aware of, which allows the use of primary sources, including self-published sources such as Twitter, on the condition that the subject of the article is talking about themselves and that it does not have extraordinary claims (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof). In the specific diff Pabsoluterince provided, the tweet was clearly WP:ABOUTSELF-compliant, so it was in my view inappropriate to remove it. Pilaz (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, some excellent points. Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Jarebear821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm incredibly sorry for edit warring, violating the three revert rule and not explaining myself. I want to show that I've reformed my behavior and changed. I want to be more transparent and less aggressive with my edits. I don't want to create a negative space for the administrators or fellow editors. I hope you understand.
Decline reason:
You aren't blocked for edit warring, you are blocked for deliberately offensive vandalism like this piece of work. Yamla (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jarebear821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ludwig Ahgren article was getting brigaded when he pulled it up on stream [[6]] (Timestamp 2:00:08) I was trying to revert edits of vandalism and completely unknown to me I reverted edits of someone who was actually trying to help. Instead of checking which user was vandalizing the page I reverted the wrong user with no questions asked and that is entirely my fault. I know this sounds unconvincing and at this point I've accepted my ban. I never would willingly try to vandalize an article. I should've been more careful and I blew it. I'm so sorry this happened.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline. You must sign in to your account if you wish to make an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jarebear821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ludwig Ahgren article was getting brigaded when he pulled it up on stream [[7]] (Timestamp 2:00:08) I was trying to revert edits of vandalism and completely unknown to me I reverted edits of someone who was actually trying to help. Instead of checking which user was vandalizing the page I reverted the wrong user with no questions asked and that is entirely my fault. I know this sounds unconvincing and at this point it feels like I have to accept my ban. I would never willingly try to vandalize an article and I'm virulently against it [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I should've been more careful and I blew it. I care so much about contributing to wikipedia in a positive way and I'm absolutely gutted that I made this irrational mistake. I'm so sorry this happened. Also, I'm so sorry for not logging when I made this response. I wanted to make a response as soon as possible and I forgot to log in.
Decline reason:
You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference. I get the sense that you probably feel bad about what happened, but you do not address your inappropriate comment and tell what steps you will take to avoid such behavior in the future. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Jarebear821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to show that I will be more careful while editing and less trigger happy. I want to examine what I'm doing before I submit my changes. I know I didn't get blocked for this, but I also don't want get into anymore edit wars. If me and an editor have disagreement I want to communicate with them in a more productive way. I would also like to apologize for any inappropriate comments I've made. That's not the person I want to be. I don't want to offend anyone. I don't want to ruin the integrity of wikipedia. I understand how incredibly important wikipedia is in todays age. I want to prove that I can create a positive space and not a negative one. I want to be an example of someone who can change for the better. I'm deeply sorry.
Decline reason:
I appreciate that you want to do better, and that is an excellent thing to state. The next step is to show an admin that you understand why the actions that led to the block were wrong. In future unblock requests, please outline the following:
- Why were the edits that led to your block wrong? In other words, what Wikipedia policies did it violate?
- What will you do differently to avoid this mistake from happening again?
Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.