Jump to content

User talk:CastJared/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

November 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.8.244. Place any further information here. CastJared (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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.

December 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.8.244. Place any further information here. CastJared (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Nothing has changed since your last request. If you have additional information to provide, please, in a new request, replace the words "Place any further information here" with your additional information. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2022 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 136.158.8.244. I did do anything wrong. I have my account with it. CastJared (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The IP is blocked but you aren't, so this is a procedural decline. I advise you to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow the instructions there to apply for IP block exemption so this won't be a problem. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2022 (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.

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed a recent edit you made does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! — Manticore 06:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Game of Thrones, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Manticore 08:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I included 4K UHD on GOT including its title card when its shown for the first seven seasons. The final season changes its opening title sequence. CastJared (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, slow down

Followed WP:AGF. CastJared (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi CastJared, I noticed your edit on The Last of Us Part I, which was reverted by Rhain. I've skimmed over your edits, and I want to ask you kindly to slow down a bit. As a registered editor, you've been here since 29 November, 34 days to be precise. The bulk of your edits are constructive and very welcome, but there are some things you probably wouldn't have done with a greater understanding of Wikipedia.

  • Reporting AlsoWukai led to no violation. There is no WP:DEADLINE and it's better to take the time to properly discuss things before starting to report on other editors. And to go in the discussion, instead of reverting, why not try to find additional sources to try to back up the claim?
  • You've unnecessarily issued warnings to Stickguy and Dyaluk08. You have to assume good faith: those edits they've made on The Last of Us were clearly done trying to improve the article. Those didn't need a warning. Also note that Stickguy has been here since 2005, you can assume they've got a little more experience than you with Wikipedia. There's an essay, WP:DTTR. In a nutshell, with established editors, don't use standard templates but try talking to them if there's an issue. Like I'm doing right now.
  • I'm not sure if editing a page that's about Wikipedia policy is suitable, as you did here. I'm not convinced you already know what Wikipedia is not, yet you've edited the page all the same.
  • Lastly, the edit that Rhain reverted, is just unnecessary. We do not have to point that kind of stuff out. And it was unsourced to boot.

Now, again, the bulk of your edits are excellent in nature and honestly believe you are trying to help. But when it comes to stuff like policy and issuing warnings, I urge you to slow down a bit and make sure you're familiar with guidelines. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thanks, and happy editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I’m gonna assume good faith this time. CastJared (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, but please assume good faith all the time. The overwhelming majority of registered editors as well as anonymous IP editors are trying to improve Wikipedia. If it's clearly disruptive, a test edit or downright vandalism, then it's a different story of course. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft relating to HBO controversies

I made a draft relating to HBO controversies, surrounding with it's original programming.

Draft:HBO controversies CastJared (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (January 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
This is a WP:CFORK as information is already covered more in-depth in the individual pages.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Game of Thrones into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 13:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Euphoria (American TV series)) for a period of 24 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Salvio 13:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Indagate has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Join the discussion instead of giving incorrect warnings, plus WP:DONTTEMPLATE Indagate (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (January 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
Same as previous. The attribution added shows that this topic is in fact already covered in those individual pages.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings

Respectfully, you are not in a position to give out warnings like this. You have been on Wikipedia for less than two months and should not be handing out warnings about disruptive editing until you gain more experience yourself. Additionally, please read our policies and guidelines on reliable sources; forums and IMDb are not reliable sources, so your additions to R62A (New York City Subway car) had been removed for that reason. However, your edits to R32 (New York City Subway car) were fine, as they complied with our policy on reliable sources.

I see that you were notified just last week about this. I'm going to repeat what Soetermans said at that time: "With established editors, don't use standard templates but try talking to them if there's an issue." As a reminder, Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a guideline that editors are expected to follow all the time. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

96 Tube Stock

Hi CastJared, the London Underground 1996 Stock (and 1995 Stock) are not related to the Alstom Metropolis sets used on the North East MRT line. At the time, they were designed and manufactured by GEC Alsthom-Metro-Cammell, before the Metropolis design was first introduced in the late 1990s. (The 199X Stock design was in the early 1990s). I have reverted your edits. Turini2 (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Similar sound effects? CastJared (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You made a mistake

Re: this post on my talk, I left an edit summary. Why did you post this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I spotted that Category:Television shows scored by Gustavo Santaolalla is gonna get deleted, but why is it reverted and removed? CastJared (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
It was going to be deleted because it was a category with no articles in it. Then, someone added articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You made another mistake

You posted this to my talk page, yet have no involvement in the article, provided any discussion about the issue, or referenced the edit summary which was used. Was there a reason you did not give the warning (or the perceived slight) to the original poster of the information?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euphoria (American TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hougang MRT station

Hi there before adding Bare URL templates please check if there is any bare reference in the page. Your edit for the page, Hougang MRT station, has been reverted since there is no bare reference. Egeymi (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There is too much dead links. CastJared (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
For dead links we use dead link template, not the one you added. Egeymi (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
There?[dead link] CastJared (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Further changes to Emmy nominations

Hi, following up on this discussion, I noticed you reverted the character names at 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards and 74th Primetime Emmy Awards by citing WP:STATUSQUO, but the status quo at those articles for months had been to use the names given in the nominations list. You also say it applies for HBO characters without (a) updating any other characters or (b) directly linking a source. Is there any reason you think that information should override what the official nominations say (since that list should be the definitive source for Emmy articles, at least in my opinion)? RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I looked on the HBO website, it does mention the nicknames, but not the full names. CastJared (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not quite sure what your point is...? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
My point is because I know that I find multiple of them from each source. CastJared (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't see why finding names on HBO's website justifies changing those names and only those names, especially when no source is provided and other sources have different info. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Continued inappropriate warnings

Welcome to Wikipedia. It's been a busy two months since your arrival here. I note that, not unlike many brand new editors, you received a number of suggestions, corrections and warnings on your talk page. This is to be expected, and provides helpful direction to new editors such as yourself. I also note that, with that entire first month of experience, your second month has you suddenly spending over 30% of your time editing other user talk: pages, using your one month's worth of "wisdom" to give hundreds of warnings and threats to others.

To repeat what Epicgenius said to you here, which already notes several other examples of your work, you are not in a position to give out these inappropriate warnings. Many of them are directed towards issues that you are not even a part of – but rather show you co-opting the work of other users. These after-the-fact warnings that you are giving, based on some other user's work, such as here, here, here and here, is not what a secondary party is responsible for. The user who performed the original corrective edit has done the work.

As a further note, once you have been an editor here for longer than your current two months, you will come to realize that having to create a talk page for an IP user is often moot. Many of your after-the-fact warnings went to IP users who had made only the one edit you are warning about – they are not receiving your inappropriate warning because they are not there anymore. If you look at the contributions page for the IP user you are targeting, you will see the standard Wikipedia comment "This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users." You will also be able to see if they are a regular contributor or if they are a a one-and-gone. In most cases, you have carried out an inappropriate co-opting of someone else's corrective edit, by leaving a warning to a user who is not even there. Yes, it is frustrating when these drive-by edits by IP users occur, but someone else has already fixed it, and the IP user (when it is vandalism, like this one, or when it is done in good faith, like many others you piled on against), are never going to see your co-opting effort.

Like Soetermans said to you earlier this month, slow down a bit. You started strong, and have made hundreds of constructive edits to articles and even started a draft of a new article. Nice work. Focus on continuing those efforts, keep developing your skills, and step back from some (most?) of the time spent giving hundreds of warnings to other users, including IP users who will never see them anyway. Thank you for getting involved in Wikipedia, always be learning (17 years and I still learn new tools and tricks here every day), and let the joyful part of being a contributing user wash over you. Jmg38 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Leaving Neverland into Draft:HBO controversies. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (February 13)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Silikonz was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Redundant forks are not acceptable. You are welcome to make a summarised list.
Silikonz💬 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Silikonz💬 18:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of awards and nominations received by Euphoria

Hello! Your submission of List of awards and nominations received by Euphoria at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Bennv123 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Birth dates

Please stop adding birth dates to WP:BLPs. I don't believe you have a strong enough understanding of reliable sourcing criteria to take on this task.-- Ponyobons mots 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Informed on Talk:Aurora Perrineau and Talk:Storm Reid. CastJared (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, CastJared. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Euphoria.
Message added 08:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey CastJared, I've marked Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Euphoria as unsuccessful as there are too many issues that will need to be addressed to make this eligible. As you've read and removed my previous talkpage message about this nomination, I take it that you do not wish to see this nomination through anymore. I hope you give DYK another go in the future after familiarizing yourself with the DYK eligibility criteria. Regards. Bennv123 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Same issues as before.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Funimation

Thanks for the edits at Funimation, if the IP does one more move again, kindly block him and undo the edits. -174.91.109.231 (talk)- — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Continued sourcing issues

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ponyobons mots 00:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I asked you to stop adding birthdates to articles due to concerns that you don't understand Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sourcing and yet you continue to add WP:DOB violations to articles. This is your second block in a very short time period. Please listen to the advice provided by other edtors when the block expires.-- Ponyobons mots 00:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have certain reasons why I suppose to find a reliable source, but there is too many citations nearby. CastJared (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is incoherent. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 28 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.

Discussion on the wording of 3RR

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. CastJared (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


Don't template me

My edits were made in good faith. If the consensus is against me I accept that. Leaving a vandalism template on an experienced editor's talk page is just insulting. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Rollbacked both warnings from 3 users, cancelling them. CastJared (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Your removal of the A-HA content from The Last of Us (TV series)

Your removal is not acceptabel. The info was correct and link to article with info was provided: https://collider.com/last-of-us-episode-7-take-me-on/?fbclid=IwAR0lI-RD3BJU7AtCZ_lDHzWVI3aukdkeao296xDW3uBXwDjnJ8j14joodX0. I also find it odd that you specifically only removed the info on A-ha but let info on other music stay. There has been multipal articles about A-ha's song and the various items related to them in the series and how boith the orignal, but also a cover of Take On Me has been used in the series. Even the series creator and the game creator has commented on how they were added both to the series and game in the past and how Paul Waaktar Savoy was contacted via his wife and asked for permision and how he felt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kxsM1b8dBI . So yes, fairly important song. The info wich was clealry very modest will be added back on albite somewaht rewritten Mortyman (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Left Behind (The Last of Us)? CastJared (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Update: Already edited the citation. CastJared (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I still don't get what the problem is. If this is so difficult then I guess I have to ask you to add the info to the music section. I am at loss as to what you are really asking from me. The info was sourced and I tried to change to a more neutral view, but you still complain. Now the music info stops at episode 4 wich is vierd. Mortyman (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. CastJared (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page about my editing of the wording about Ellie killing David. Saying that she overpowered him is a bit inaccurate. She's a petite early teen girl and David is an adult man. She's being overpowered by David but manages to grab a meat cleaver that is behind her and uses it to kill him. It was an edit based on how it is worded, the same sources used are already there. I don't want to get into some stupid revert war on this. I think we could just go for something that reflects that she kills him with a meat cleaver without the misleading use of overpower. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Archives on working sources

Sorry, I'm not understanding the reason to add archives to working pages [1], especially when those archives contain 2-5 years old data. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to know. CastJared (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Archives are useful for working links as the link can unexpectedly break, temporarily or permanently. The bot would have added a more recent archive if the ref had a more recent access-date, which should be last date information was retrieved from the source. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on House of the Dragon. 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. I have explained how the information you've added is not verified (WP:VERIFY a policy) by your citations at all in edit summaries, it's speculation and/or not relevant at all. You have made an edit, that was reverted, you should start a discussion to gain consensus for your edit. I am restoring the WP:STATUSQUO so WP:ONUS is on you. Indagate (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:List of HBO original programming. CastJared (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for starting discussion, responded there Indagate (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you use the BOT wrong

In this edit you apparently intended to use IABot (?) to "rescue 1 source", but the BOT actually reverted your entire prior edit. You may need to review how to use it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiDan61, "bot" is not an acronym; see Robot#Etymology. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Annamalai K (April 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by UtherSRG was:
This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Annamalai Kuppusamy, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Timing of bot edits; concerns with "obscurring" recent disruption

Your frequent "Rescuing n sources" edits are frequently being applied to articles that have been the subject of a noticeboard posting where there is active edit-warring or disruption, and fairly often, your bot edits are obscuring disruptive edits, so that it's not obvious that the most recent edit was disruptive. You can see an example here where your bot edits come immediately after an edit-warring IP made an edit. What exactly is triggering those source-rescue edits? OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Good faith edits

Your recently reverted edits on Youtube PRemium as good faith edits Those sure arent my definition of good faith Starship 24 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus

On 8 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the 2022 Primetime Emmy Awards The White Lotus was nominated in five categories and won in all? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! CastJared (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Article nominations

Resolved
See also Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. CastJared (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please ensure you are famillar with the rules before nominating an article for something like "good article" status, or DYK. Can see you nominated many but been reverted with explanation, then in some cases restored your nomination without explanation. Please read WP:GAI thoroughly, especially part "Nominators must have contributed significantly to the article". Making that many nominations will mean you will not be able to respond to feedback appropriately.

I'm not a reviewer, but I think your Succession DYK nomination will fail as not created in the last week, you've not expanded it 5x, or reached good article status, per the qualification rules. You have nominated an article for DYK before, but seemingly didn't respond to the feedback at all, which is essential to the process.

Any questions, please ask someone somewhere like Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations instead of making mass nominations or similar in the future. Pinging other editors who reverted your nominations @ZooBlazer: @Rhain:. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Should we follow if reverted GA nomination and complain as per WP:BRD? CastJared (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
You shouldn't have made that many nominations regardless of if their drive-by. If someone reverts your GA nomination then read their edit summary and hopefully it includes a reason, you were given "drive-by nom" or similar so should've read WP:GAI for what a drive-by nomination is, or created a talk discussion somewhere asking, instead of just reverting without explanation. How is WP:BRD relevant to this at all? Indagate (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I know that not all episodes of The Last of Us are planned nominations? CastJared (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
They may eventually be nominated, but if you aren't one of the primary contributors to an article, you can't do a GAN unless you talk to one or more of the primary contributors first to make sure they don't mind you nominating. -- ZooBlazertalk 08:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion closed. CastJared (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please note that not all discussions have to be closed, as explained at this link. Your closure of two discussions at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring has beeen reverted, especially as one was only three days old. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you please slow down? You seem to be constantly trying to nominate articles for GA status that you haven't worked on and closing discussions randomly. If you aren't familiar with the GA criteria, please don't nominate random articles. If you aren't sure on when something should be closed (it's not normally just when someone hasn't added to it in a while) leave it unarchived. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Within assume good faith and be bold? Also, with GA instructions? CastJared (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I have to be honest with you, I find most of your responses to be difficult to understand. We require GA nominations to be done by those who have worked on them (or at least with the blessing of those people). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Alright. Anyways, this discussion is closed. CastJared (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copying without attribution (third warning)

Resolved
CastJared (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The White Lotus into List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Bennv123 (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I see you were already warned about this twice before by others ([2], [3]) and were again informed about it by me at Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by Euphoria. Please understand that giving proper attribution is a requirement; refusing to do so is a violation of Wikipedia's copyrights policy and can thus get you blocked. Bennv123 (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. CastJared (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yet you did it anyway! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Example: Copying parts of one article to a different article. "copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution." CastJared (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

caution on Final Warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just undid a "Final warning" notice that you placed on User talk:Sharkdogdaughter‎, as the editor hadn't done any editing since the initial warning was given. If an editor seems to be responding appropriately to being warned, it's counterproductive to warn them again. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been numerous notifications to this user regarding inappropriate notices left to users. Please see history/archives. AGF has long since passed, there are more serious issues with this user.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
And within don't template the regulars. CastJared (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
CastJared. I think we have a competency issue here. You need to not play with things that you can't handle. Consider this a final warning and that you might be blocked for CIR next time out. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@CastJared Please read the competency essay that Lee linked, including about being cautious of citing it. See you cited it an IP's talk page in addition to an edit-warring warning, and in an unrelated edit-warring report. Also, you've made two reports there in last two days but do not seem involved in the disputes, including one for an IP after the page was protected so action already taken. You have made several edit-warring reports, including one on 22 March for the WP:Sandbox ([4]). May be better to avoid making reports like these in the near future. Indagate (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of House of the Dragon characters (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Trouted

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: Special:Diff/1149840998 - "Keep - this is a controversial article"? That's a pretty silly reason to keep. While I appreciate irony, these discussions are meant for serious, policy-based rationale. I think reading (or re-reading) over pages such as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:Deletion policy would be a very good idea for you to do. (This isn't any sort of warning and you're not in trouble - hence the trout, don't worry about it. Just please don't do it again.) casualdejekyll 21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Trouted (2)

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: Reverting a political candidate for local elections, despite sources being outdated and no records of such claims via the citation are available. aka, reinforcing shaky citations. Hansenxyz (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

McSorley's Old Ale House

Resolved
CastJared (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are you turning currently live links into archived links? What's the advantage to this? Do you have a Wikipedia policy that suggests doing this, or a consensus of editors supporting your edits? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Note: this has been discussed at User talk:Rhain#"Standard procedure". There's no policy prohibiting the archiving of working links, and it is beneficial to the project moreso than harmful anyways.
— AP 499D25 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archives (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Every person in responsible for their semi-automated edits, which include adding archives. If the added archives are outdated compared to the content in the articles and the source they are based on - the edit to add such archives is unconstructive. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Converting links to Internet Archive links. CastJared (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
That discussion is irrelevant. There is big difference between archives to news articles (or whatever sources that do not change) and adding archives to pages which contents are in constant change. Such pages need the most up-to-date sources. If there is a working archive now, it will be in the future. It's not rescuing a source, it's making the source useless. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
"Statistics - Driver starts in WRC events". www.juwra.com. Archived from the original on 22 December 2021. Retrieved 2023-03-24. - The tool is not even adding the latest possible date of the archive. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10 It's not harmful, since the URL status of the cite template is set to "live" and so the main / actual link still takes you to the original page. You have to click on that dedicated "Archived" link to go to the archived page. So it's not like it's replacing the original source link with an archived one entirely. (Even when url-status is set to dead, it still gives you the original link.) Furthermore, it even states the date clearly there. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Not harmful, but useless for sure. I'd even say trash as it would now need cleanup, while it did not before. And trash is trash even if it is dated. Does such edits make articles better? No. So what's the point? Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Think the IABot only adds the latest archive before the access-date parameter in the citation template, so when access-date is missing it may add a really old archive like that, ensure all citations have access-date of when they were latest accessed and found to have the information in the article. Indagate (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The example I gave, had the access-date of 24 March 2023. Still the archive is from 2021, while there are newer possibilities. Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IABotManagementConsole

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey, how do you rescue sources using IABotManagementConsole [1.2]? Thanks in advance! RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not CastJared, but I know how to use IABotManagementConsole so I might as well answer your question. Go to iabot.toolforge.org then log in with your Wikipedia account. Then, click on the dropdown menu which says "Run Bot". Click "fix a single page" when you want to run the bot on one page or "Queue bot to run on multiple pages" to run it on multiple pages. After entering the page title(s) of the pages you want to run the bot on on either page, InternetArchiveBot will run on that page and fix deadlinks as necessary.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 22:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Requesting immediate archiving...

Running rescue scripts on articles in WP:RFPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning icon I have no idea why you think it's a good idea to target articles in WP:RFPP, but it's obvious that you are; please stop doing this. It's disruptive to run scripts on articles that are likely to be in a disputed state; here is a recent example where your script changes had to be "thrown out with the bathwater." OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are you even running the script manually on all these pages anyway? IAbot can be run on a multitude of pages. Is this just to inflate an edit count? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, I'm using IABot to rescue citations. CastJared (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Generally it should be done on pages for a reason, but you can run it on multiple pages with [5], rather than running on multiple pages individually. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relisting of AfD Candidates

Resolved
Also, accidentally installed XFDcloser. CastJared (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey @CastJared, I noticed that you relisted two AfD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Bangkok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Brussels. Can you explain why you relisted these? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Because I sometimes relist the AfD discussions if the consensus rate if Keep, Delete, or Merge votes/suggestions are argued. CastJared (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
That answer doesn't make sense. Discussions should not be relisted if they've been listed in the last seven days; see WP:RELIST.
AfD closure and relisting is usually handled by admins who work regularly in the space and have a deep understanding of how things work. From this and a few other comments on this talk page it seems like you're still getting familiar with Wikipedia policy. That's fine, but so long as you're still getting up to speed I'd highly advise against using tools like XfDcloser to relist discussions. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Like within a week, then relist? CastJared (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
There is more to the policy of closing or relisting discussions than waiting a week; that is just one requirement for relisting. Your explanation "if the consensus rate if Keep, Delete, or Merge votes/suggestions are argued" does not make sense. That doesn't mean anything, and is definitely not a valid reason for relisting. Neither is "Too many people are choosing Keep or Delete. Needed more consensus," the relisting comment you left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Bangkok.
Again, I really advise against taking actions like relisting AfDs until you are far more familiar with the policies that are important to that process. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I notice you also relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean nail salon workers with the comment Unfortunately, the keep suggestions are affected, but violations of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTNP are none. But trimming the size of the article is significantly. Beyond also being pretty hard to understand, this relist comment appears to take a stance on the policy values of the existing arguments. I'm pretty sure this is something you should generally not do in a relist comment, as it can appear more authoritative than the surrounding policy discussion.
You said you "sometimes" relist AfDs; have you relisted other AfDs besides these three? Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
No, not all that time. CastJared (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm going to undo these. Again, I'd ask that you not relist any more AfDs. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless if it's a week. CastJared (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuing closed/archived convo on AfD closures

Resolved
Also, uninstalled XFDcloser. CastJared (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey @CastJared, you closed and archived the conversation about AfD closure, so as per your request, I am opening a new one.

I'm really worried by your response Unless if it's a week. That was one of the problems with the relistings you did, but not the only issue. Your relist comments and your replies in our prior conversation indicate that you don't seem to understand the process you're trying to apply. I'm sure you don't intend your editing to be disruptive, but realize that it takes the time and attention of other editors to identify and fix these issues when they occur. I strongly recommend uninstalling the XfDCloser script you have. That is a tool primarily used by admins and non-admins with a deep understanding of the deletion process.

It appears that several other people have suggested you slow down your automated editing and editing in project space. I second that suggestion.

Also, as others have noted, you don't need to close every conversation on your talk page. You are entirely allowed to close conversations and to archive or remove things from your talk page, but doing so rapidly every time someone raises a concern with your editing may be taken as a sign that you are not listening to other editors. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Uninstalled. CastJared (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm still using Lowercase sigmabot III to archive. I have to let the bot do it. CastJared (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
What? Like I said, you're allowed to archive your talk page if you want. You can, of course, change the bot config. That said, your most recent archival was manual, per your own edit summaries. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 02:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Lowercase sigmabot III can archive at some point if the discussion is older than days. CastJared (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, restoring is just WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. CastJared (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Not every time is a wall of shame. CastJared (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Euphoria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How come IT isn't a psychological drama? 2A00:1028:83BC:4CE:5C7B:D892:8C07:2D7C (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Not any HBO series like Euphoria, The Undoing, and The White Lotus are psychological drama. CastJared (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
But still,you must admint that the show delves deep into the character's minds, showcasing their fantasies ECT. Honestly, I think that it's a psychological drama after all 2A00:1028:83BC:4CE:5C7B:D892:8C07:2D7C (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
To the IP: to claim a genre such as psychological drama, you need to provide a reliable source. To CastJared:, your reasoning of "Not any HBO series like Euphoria, The Undoing, and The White Lotus are psychological drama" is irrelevant and doesn't make sense as those shows have nothing to do with Euphoria and its genres; The Undoing is labeled "psychological thriller", which is similar to psychological drama. Plenty of HBO shows can be considered psychological dramas, including The Sopranos [6], Six Feet Under [7], In Treatment [8], True Detective [9], Mildred Pierce [10], and Sharp Objects [11]. Your reasoning is invalid. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (June 17)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by BuySomeApples was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: I'm declining this draft, and while I know that's a bit final, there are a few good reasons why I doubt this topic will warrant a standalone page.

The first is that most of these controversies are already present on the Wikipedia pages for each television series. For example Game of Thrones and Leaving Neverland both have sections dedicated to their respective controversies.

The second reason is WP:DUEWEIGHT. HBO has broadcast a huge number of television shows and films, including original productions. Many releases will have some level of controversy, but it's not necessary, feasible or even helpful to readers to put that all on one page. A section summarizing controversies from each show would not be allowed on the HBO page for that reason.

There really doesn't seem to be a rationale for creating this page. I do appreciate the work you put into this, and maybe you can add some content to the series' pages if anything is missing. That way it's not a wasted effort.

BuySomeApples (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
My draft have lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. The specific problem is: Entire draft of each content are forked out. The entire draft will be rewritten it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. CastJared (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies has been accepted

HBO controversies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– Joe (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of HBO controversies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HBO controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBO controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

About your AFD votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed that you always use "Agreed with all the editors involved" for "strong" stances, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Your votes are WP:MAJORITY and should be avoided. You are encouraged to point out which guidelines you are referring, and please do some background research before voting to make a meaningful vote. Also please utilize the use of "strong". Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@CastJared you are still making poor quality votes at AFD that vaguely say you agree with another editor, rarely if ever specifying a policy. Remember, these discussions are not a numerical vote.
It's also unhelpful to comment on an AFD just to say that you don't have an opinion either way. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
besides not being policy based, your !votes are often incomprehensible. Please take better care to give clear input when you participate at AfD (or elsewhere). Star Mississippi 02:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, CastJared,
I came here to say the same thing and it looks like I'm not alone. You are very active weighing in on AFD deletion discussions but it's not clear whether you have thoroughly evaluated the article in question, assessed the sources and maybe even looked for and located additional reliable sources to help preserve an article. Please take each nomination seriously, don't base your vote solely on the nomination statement or other editors' opinions. Don't be focused on quantity of discussions you participate in or your AFD stats but on the quality of your participation. Evaluating articles in a helpful way takes time and effort and if you don't want to invest that effort, please find another area of the project to help out in. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll see if there any involvement, like it does not cite any sources, or even un-notable that fails WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Not citing sources, or having involvement are not reasons for deletion, and some of your recent input remains unclear *Keep: It has multiple citations, also it need multiple reliable citations for this article. or wrong *:This draft does not cite any sources. (citations aren't required for drafts that aren't yet submitted). I really suggest learning more about policy before continuing to participate or you may find yourself losing access to do so. Star Mississippi 13:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2023

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I stating that I should have competence. CastJared (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a valid unblock request rationale, consensus forming at ANI that this was a good block. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 22 June 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CastJared (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block will no longer be necessary because I will not continue to cause a disruption and will make useful contributions instead. CastJared (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please show your ability to do so on another project. Repeated unblock requests here will lead to you losing access to edit this page. Star Mississippi 02:42, 22 June 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.

Hello, CastJared,
Please take a deep breath and avoid the impulse to post another unblock request. Typically at 3 declined unblock requests, talk page access is taken away. I really recommend reviewing WP:Guide to appealing blocks which really tells you what reviewing administrators are looking for from blocked editors. Thoughtfully consider the issues that editors and admins had with your editing behavior and think how you can change that behavior. Do not simply apologize and promise to do better, you have to offer a convincing response that indicates you understand what the problems were. Really, review that guide and take a few days or weeks before posting another unblock request. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I should know this and I have to think before posting an appeal request. CastJared (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CastJared/Archive_1&oldid=1210924664"