User talk:JackyTheChemosh

Hi. Regarding this, I reverted because like I stated with a note, "This term is not simply used as a slur. It is, for example, used as a neutral descriptor in pornography. Criticism and controversy concerning the term are addressed in the second paragraph of the lead and lower in the article. As seen in that paragraph and lower in the article, some in the transgender community disagree with objection to its use." If you reply to me on this, please reply here on your talk page instead of at mine.

Hey, I just reverted your edit at a redirect page. Just to let you know, the '#' is required for the redirect to keep working. Happy Editing! Signed,

yeah sorry. i went a bit braindead. JackyTheChemosh (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fred Sargeant ‎. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.[1][2][3]

• 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

@CorbieVreccan correct me if i am wrong but only you and a BoN and to my knowledge neither of you are administrators.

Trans-exclusionary radical feminist is very much not a loaded label and is used academically. Gender critical is loaded as well as POV as it is exclusively used by people sympathetic to their views.

Unless we're quoting an article we are not required to use the same wording as it. The sources are also not neutral on the person making restricting ourselves to their wording even more inappropriate.

You added the section to the article and have reverted my corrections to the incorrect labeling of the transgender rights movement as "the transgender movement".

This makes it appear like you're engaging in article ownership on top of adding POV statements JackyTheChemosh (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. It's simple enough to look these things up. I don't know if you really don't know how to do this, or if you are pretending you don't know to be disruptive. Either way, I don't have the time to walk you through this. As all your edits to the article have been disruptive, you don't seem to be engaging in good faith here. -

☼ 20:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@CorbieVreccan i would like to apologize for what i did. While i still disagree with your reasoning, I'm sorry if i was disruptive in any way as i did not intend to be. i saw a POV statement and wished to correct it. unfortunately my revisions to the more academic term trans exclusionary radical feminism were unsourced and low effort so i apologize on that front JackyTheChemosh (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of active separatist movements in Europe. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

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 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. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen that you've recently had the same issue with a specific user being quite thick-headed about the inclusion of the "Etat Pied-Noir", despite every source basically claiming the opposite of what they're pretending to see. I already asked for third party opinion, but I don't have any high hopes there. We all know that that list article is basically a dump for LARPers and other weird people's ideas, but do you know of any possibility to resolve this? This kind of erroneous gatekeeping is really annoying given the nature of that article. Also, I see that they hit you with the janitor edit war box as well despite being also edit warring. Fun times ahead! --HolonZeias (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HolonZeias ive given up tbh. ill let others deal with it since ive done all i could JackyTheChemosh (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sad but understandable, I might end up like this soon anyway. Thanks for the quick reply. HolonZeias (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JackyTheChemosh reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]