User talk:JudgeJason

Hi JudgeJason! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. --John (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

--John (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Death of Eric Garner, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. And please stop removing citations from multiple articles. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk pages and seek consensus for your changes. - MrX 18:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are restoring partisan sources making claims about themselves, when third-party sources have already been provided. Don't be stupid (source: me).--JudgeJason (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are fine. They don't make self-serving claims and the citations serve a purpose of providing readers the ability to verify information. If you disagree, you're welcome to discuss it on the respective talk pages.- MrX 19:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

So you dilute sources of an article with partisan sources. I thought this was an encyclopedia.--JudgeJason (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "dilute sources". Wikipedia is a knowledge resource and Black Lives Matter has been cited by other news sources as described in WP:USEBYOTHERS. I did agree with your removal of the tumblr cites.- MrX 19:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblr is not any more or less reliable than blacklivesmatters.com, facebook.com/blacklivesmatter, twitter.com/blacklivesmatter, anysocialmediasiteorblogplatform.com/blacklivesmatter website.--JudgeJason (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, at the Jeremy Corbyn article, you are engaged in edit warring. Per the talkpage, there is no consensus to include that information, which is a possible serious violation of WP:BLP and a smear by association. I ask you to immediately revert your edit and continue discussion. If you continue to edit war at Jeremy Corbyn, including in violation of WP:ARBPIA I will have no choice but to report you to the WP:ANI and propose a topic ban for you. AusLondonder (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA is unrelated to this, and there's no "smear by association" or BLP violation as explained on the talk page. They are simple facts. Politicians political links are ties are relevant. You didn't respond on the talk page since reverting.--JudgeJason (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA is related to this, as you have been posting material relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Sunday Express was found guilty of libel for making allegations linking Interpal and Hamas, as you have, so it is potentially a massive and serious BLP violation. I did respond on the page, in which no consensus was found for your proposed changes. AusLondonder (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JudgeJason. I have examined your recent contributions and I see a disturbing pattern of making controversial edits on articles on living people, often connected with race or the Israel/Palestine scene, and edit-warring. It would be far better in these sensitive areas if you could always reach consensus in discussion before making your edits. If your edit is reversed, you should return to discussion or dispute resolution rather than re-revert. If I see continued edit-warring from you then it is likely I will enact sanctions, either under the ARBPIA I already warned you about, or just as a regular behavioural matter. Please don't hesitate to ask if there is any other advice or guidance you need to get the most out of editing. --John (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the reliable sources discuss, there is no evidence, much less proof, of malicious or "hoaxing" intent on the part of Ahmed Mohamed. It is therefore inappropriate to include the incident in that category, as it depicts a living minor person in a false light. I have reverted your addition of the "hoaxes" category and request that you discuss it on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your rapid whitespace edits to your user talk seem clearly designed to "game" your way to extended confirmed. Do not do this or the right will be removed as soon as it is automatically given. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]