User talk:Jayhawker6

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE ~~u mean~~

The trout has been returned crispy with sauce to the IP. --jayhawker6 (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jayhawker6, if the trout was about your repeated reverts at Mumsnet, you deserve a caution, not a trout. That content was sourced simply to the site itself; the IP was not using a very clear edit summary in removing it ("inauthentic"), but was right to do so. Remember, IPs are editors too, and edit warring is edit warring. Look at the edit before you revert, and don't just keep reverting; as a minimum first step, explain more fully in your edit summary when re-reverting. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Jeez @

  WP:WL fashion. jayhawker6 (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I did look at the history. The section has now been removed. You and the other editor maintained an edit war against a reasonable removal. And warnings to IPs may never be seen—the person may have been switched to a different IP in the meantime. True, I didn't look at who trouted you; maybe it was for something else. But vandal patrol is not a shooting gallery, you are responsible for your edits regardless of what tools you may be using (and can override the automatic edit summary), and perhaps most importantly, people are allowed to edit Wikipedia without registering. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said people aren't allowed to edit without registering! You made your opinion clear and so have I. Further discussion of this topic is not likely to be productive and I don't feel like it has been constructive so far either. Your points have been made, my points have been made, let us drop the

  WP:STICKs. jayhawker6 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Hey, just a heads up, I deleted your warning on User talk:2600:1700:60DD:410:C8B:7DD7:CDF5:288E. I don't think it was vandalism, I've edited the article in question to add a bit of clarity. I usually don't revert others talk comments but thought it was likely a mistake, just letting you know so you can revert my revert if you feel differently. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you could explain what the heck the user is doing [here] it would be helpful. jayhawker6 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FozzieHey: jayhawker6 (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the joys of

WP:AGF, huh! I still don't consider the first edit to be vandalism though, and can see the possibility of a good faith editor coming up with a similar edit. I'm weary of using templates with no further context against possible good faith editors as it may scare them off. However, I'm happy to agree to disagree, and as I said, feel free to revert my revert. FozzieHey (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I agree with your edit. I'm just curious if you have any idea [what the user is doing to their talk page right now] @FozzieHey jayhawker6 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking notice of what's been going on at Linga Balija. I would invite you to take a look at the page's history - at one point I tried to help, and later tried to mitigate the issues there, but it's beyond my ability to deal with this person's rather confusing actions (adding and removing the same text dozens of times, adding public domain material without attribution and then immediately deleting it, etc.) Would like to know what you as a more experienced editor advise as I've been watching it a while. Reconrabbit 15:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I am just as confused here as you are. I will take action a few more times and then maybe contact an admin if they don't reply. jayhawker6 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't done anything outside of this page which makes me think it's not a huge priority. But worth noting that Jai Balija (talk · contribs) is probably Jaikumar Linga Balija (talk · contribs). Reconrabbit 18:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the EUTM MALI website, I am the PUBLIC AFFAIR OFFICER of the mission, and I am updating everything related to it. I would like to know what you have seen wrong and not neutral, facts that have occurred and relevant to the mission.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.155.158.82 (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page will be updated with info you need to read before continuing. jayhawker6 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your "This is your only warning" message, it states "if you continue to avoid templating me because I'm a regular" whilst linking to WP:DTR - but doesn't "if you continue to avoid" imply that you are going to trout us for not templating you? You silly goose. Synorem (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the template @Synorem ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ jayhawker6 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received several emails from you alerting me to the lack of citations on edits I recently made. The edits concerned the inclusion of myself as the artist/designer of several video games cover art. Would this web page be acceptable as a verifiable source: https://www.mobygames.com/person/15955/w-stephen-blower/ Wsteveb (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk page Justiyaya 09:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:COI which means you generally should avoid interacting with articles related to you or your past works. If you have more questions I think @Justiyaya would walk you through the guidelines of how to contribute or propose contributions with a COI better than me. jayhawker6 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thank you for taking the time to respond. It’s not a big deal, I just wanted to add relevant information, albeit it was about me! 31.125.21.98 (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have said there is a pending matter toward Andy Mcdonald and what he said. There is nothing pending toward the fact he did objectively say a statement of peace for all given that is explicitly what the statement says, in fact it even says the word "peaceful" in the statement.

So what is contentious or pending? Even if he is found "guilty", objectively he called for peace. All Labour has done so far is ignore half his statement such as the part where he called for peace for all. There is no interpretation possible for the statement to be anything other than that and anyone who does interpret it in any other manner is pulling words from thin air, is not a reliable source and should be disregarded given we can clearly read the words that came out of his mouth. 92.40.216.1 (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not pull it from thin air. We don't pull interpretations out of thin air either. The source said it was pending, so the information must be treated as such. It does not matter what your interpretation is, or what mine is. Why? Because the article is a BLP, thus the thoughts and statements of an editor should not be present whatsoever in the article. Interpretation is subjective, and given that you have interpreted that "All Labour has done so far is ignore half his statement" while calling something someone else said objective, I feel like you struggle to maintain

WP:NPOV

in this topic.  ${\displaystyle Jayhawker6}$【💬】 00:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What interpretation are you talking about? He objectively said "We will not rest until we have justice. Until all people, Israelis and Palestinians, between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty". This is explicitly a call for peace, any interpretation otherwise is simply wrong and it doesn't matter what any so called "investigation" by Labour concludes, they are not the arbiters of truth, the recording of him in the video calling for peace is the truth.

What are you talking about regarding the thoughts and statements of the editor should not be included? I'm QUOTING him, it is not my opinion, it is a simple fact that he used these words and that it was a call for peace.

If somebody says "I wish for world peace" and labour investigates them claiming this is a call for genocide, it does not change the fact that they wish for world peace. That's what they said.

Interpretation is subjective in the sense that 2+2=4 is right and 2+2=5 is wrong. 92.40.216.0 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is hiding the facts from the readers to make it seem like he didn't make a call for peace a neutral point of view to you? By your logic I can delete any information about the investigation and suspension as that is also not a neutral point of view.

You are refusing one side of the argument aka objectively his own statement that you can watch and read with your eyes. This is bias and you are the one who is violating neutrality by hiding facts that don't fit your narrative. 92.40.216.0 (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

.  ${\displaystyle Jayhawker6}$【💬】 02:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice gaslighting bro. You keep crying about neutrality and consensus and yet here you are as a one man army deleting the literal quote from the horses mouth that completely proves it was a call for peace. All because it doesn't fit your narrative.

If the investigation is ongoing, great. Innocent until proven guilty. Right now we can clearly see it was factually a call for peace, if they want to investigate and prove otherwise go right ahead but until that is done it remains a call for peace and that is what the article should say as that is the neutral, factual and objective point of view. Removal of the context and meaning of the statement is lying by omission and deliberately obscuring the facts to psyop people into thinking that he actually something offensive when he so obviously didn't if you actually bother to listen to what he said.

Nice try but worst try consider deleting account 92.40.216.3 (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]