User talk:Harry OJ

October 2017

Hello, I'm BilCat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mandeville, Jamaica have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Mandeville, Jamaica, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal opinion

The information I added to the page are known facts and some are present here on Wikipedia. Mandeville is a town (the capital), located in the parish of Manchester. Some of the noted individuals in the article were Manchestionians but were not people born in the parish Capital. I also added two individuals whos pages are existent but are under review for fact checks. Please Search for the individuals, using any media outlet and even Wikipedia and you will see that the individuals I justifiably removed are in fact Manchester born individuals but were not born in the location in question, ie. Mandeville.

Thank you--Joe V 09:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to improve the article, but there were several problems that don't follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. First, the people you are adding have no proof of notability, which generally means they don't have Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:BLP and WP:LISTPEOPLE for the relevant guidelines. Second, I have double- checked the articles of the people already.in the list,, and removed those with no stated connection to Mandeville. This leads st doesn't just include those born in Mandeville, but those who worked or went to school in Mandeville. Thanks for understanding, and if you.have any more questions about the article, please use its talk page. - BilCat (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I removed Sheryl Lee Ralph because she has no connection to the parish and has never visited the parish let alone Mandeville. Her only connection to Jamaica is a very distant connection through forefathers seen as though her parents were also US citizens. She has never visited the island neither have any of her parents or known family members. Please take this into consideration. Thank YouJoe V 09:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Her article, Sheryl Lee Ralph, states that she lived in Mandeville for some time as a child, though this is not sourced there. That's why I've retained it for now. - BilCat (talk)

Sheryl Lee Ralph has never resided in Jamaica and her schooling history on various sites prove that. As far as her traveling history is concerned she has never been recorded to have ever even traveled to the island.

Joe V 09:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added to sources to her article that state she lived in Mandeville as a child. As to her not having ever traveled to Jamaica, she was in The Mighty Quinn (film), which was filmed in Jamaica. She's in several outdoor scenes that certainly look like they were filmed in Jamaica, so I don't know how you can claim she never even visited the island, at least as an adult. Of course her accent was atrocious. - BilCat (talk)

It is known that contrary to popular belief, the film was not actually shot on the island but rather on a very small island off the coast of Port Antonio in the parish of Portland. The island is Navy Island to be specific. The reason for this was because a few of the actors had not obtained the proper work permits to work on the island so initially they were not allowed to film on the island. Seeing the potential loss of income the government highlighted a clause and told the crew that they would be allowed to film on either "Goat Island" or "Navy Island" (two small islands off the coast of Jamaica, to the South and North respectively) and they chose the latter. After filming on the island during the daytime the actors would return to the mainland as tourists (having to go through immigration every morning and evening). Crew members who obtained the proper permits, however, proceeded to film on the mainland but were restricted to the small farming community of Oraccabessa. Joe V 04:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Do you have a source for this? Please remember to sign your talk with four tildes "~~~~" Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Sheryl Lee Ralph? Joe V 04:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

To whom are you talking to? See wp:Indentation. This helps others follow the conversation. By my indenting once, I am replying to the talk just above this line. How did you generate the "Joe V 04:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)" above? It looks rather unusual. Did you add for tildes? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the content above the (talk page stalker) line. Jim1138 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find any articles online that I would be able to link that's why I've left the article. However, what I said is common knowledge and is taught on the tour of three major Jamaican museums, the "National Gallery of Jamaica", the "National Museum" and "The Univerity of the West Indies museum". And yes, I noticed my error in not signing my comment and added my signature. Better late than never! :)Joe V 04:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Byway

Is a wp:disambiguation page. Entries need to link to another Wikipedia article. I removed your entry as it wasn't linked. Also, on other articles, per wp:verifiability, significant information must wp:cite a wp:reliable source. Jim1138 (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Byway

Montego Bay is not a byway. Unless you have something which is a byway to link to, don't add it. See WP:EDIT WARRING Jim1138 (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montego Bay is not identified as a byway, Spanish Town and Portmore are and are identified as byways in the article linked. In the first paragraph to be exact.Joe V 05:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Montego Bay. Jim1138 (talk) 05:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from trailing my edits as this is against user policy. The individuals I added to the lists, and will be re-adding, are in coherence with the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Your removal of my numerous edits are as malicious and warrant permanently barring you from editing on Wikipedia. The individuals were not only added but their notability was established with various external links (which shows notability) and these individuals are well awarded. If you find fault with my edits please pursue clarity and do not edit from a place of ignorance and/or arrogance. Thank YouJoe V 05:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that Wikipedia does not only allow for only those with Wiki Pages to be identified as established but also those who's notability is established through the use of an external article which involves or cites the person. This guideline was met in the additions I made to the article.Joe V 05:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A mention in a paper regarding a post handd-over is not a ticket to Wikipedia notability. Jim1138 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article I cited was a breaking news article that notified the public of the individual's death (Please read the article in its entirety). The article was published the day after his death. Following the funeral, there was an article printed on the individual, however, the newspapers' online database does not go back as far as 2009 so I was unable to cite that and settled for the news briefing. Please also take into consideration the fact that newspapers do not send out breaking news stories for EVERY civilian who dies, so the fact that there was a breaking news story on the individual shows he was renowned. Ps: I am A Jamaican and this individual's life/legacy has been taught to us in class. This doesn't happen for every unknown person.Joe V 06:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Mandeville, Jamaica

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Mandeville, Jamaica. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bakilas (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from trailing my edits as this is against user policy. The individuals I added to the lists, and will be re-adding, are in coherence with the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Your removal of my numerous edits are as malicious and warrant permanently barring you from editing on Wikipedia. The individuals were not only added but their notability was established with various external links (which shows notability) and these individuals are well awarded. If you find fault with my edits please pursue clarity and do not edit from a place of ignorance and/or arrogance. Thank You Please also note that Wikipedia does not only allow for only those with Wiki Pages to be identified as established but also those who's notability is established through the use of an external article which involves or cites the person. This guideline was met in the additions I made to the article. Please also refer to the Talk I opened on your page for clarity on the issue. Thank YouJoe V 06:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest referring to the reply I left to the message on my talk page which explains why the linked article fails to verify notability. If you continue to edit war over this matter you run a very real risk of being blocked from Wikipedia. Also be careful with accusations of ignorance or arrogance as these could be interpreted as making a personal attack. Bakilas (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your recent editing history at Montego Bay shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BilCat (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please heed your own advice a talk page discussion was opened you just don't seem to be interested.Joe V 06:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

While I realize you're new here, continuing to revert multiple editors who are trying to tell you you're doing something wrong isn't a good idea. You need to stop, listen, and be willing to learn, or you risk being blocked for several reasons especially edit warring. Wikipedia can be a very rewarding experience, but only if you're willing to learn the ropes. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Joe_V reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ). Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Montego Bay. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Inspector Joseph Vaughan Snr.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Inspector Joseph Vaughan Snr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your dedication to the memory of Inspector Vaughan is laudable, but nothing you've written about him differentiates him from most other police officers. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article several times before deletion and I really do not see how he meets the notability criteria. The references you used say very little about him except about his length of service. You make claims that he was a member of the Order of Distinction but don't even reference something that should be one of the easiest things to do. If you recreate the article as a draft, ask for a review and don't assume you have met the notability threshold without someone else with more experience agreeing with you. Nthep (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. And as it relates to Order of Distinction, that is mostly a private ceremony and it is not a published list, so it is not as easy to cite or prove as you think. Also, thank you very much for your revision of the article and if there are any more points that you wish to express to help better the article I will gladly accept and consider. Regards, Harry OJ 19:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you please assist me with creating a page for DSP Marva Matthews if possible. I would greatly appreciate your expertise. Thanks in AdvanceHarry OJ 19:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Montego Bay. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And may you please clarify, with whom am I having an edit war? If I were engaging in one as you said, I would've probably edited something don't you think. My addition was removed and an action suggested and I have not changed a thing since. Please do enjoy your evening with some sort of fulfilling activity.Harry OJ 23:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

These edits are you edit-warring, in the exact same way and with the exact same content that you were blocked for a month ago. That is why you were warned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No! They were not. The previous ones were removed because they were insufficient. I later added quotes that I believed were substantial. After it was again removed and an explanation given to me I was content with the other user's decision and explanation, and it was left as is. Your comment would have been valid 8-10 hours ago, but I think they are irrelevant at the moment. However, I thank you for your concern and keep trying to make "Wikipedia" a more reliable and competent site. Have a Good Evening. RegardsHarry OJ 03:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)