User talk:Jellocube

You’ll have 2 find It.

May 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Anti-Masonry is frankly bizarre, and has nothing to do with article improvement, or justification of a disputed tag on the article. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is well-reasoned and accurate, and this post is a mischaracterization of it. If you do not refrain from Wikipedia:WikiBullying, this will be resolved in court as defamation. Jellocube (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jellocube, may I suggest that you simply slow down… break your concerns up into specific changes you would like to make, and discuss each item one by one on the article talk page… rather than making large changes all at once.

Let’s start with the tag you placed at the top of the article… it says that the article contains factual inaccuracies. Yet your complaints on the talk page don’t tell us what facts you think are inaccurate. Did you mean to use that tag? Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quenya

It is not vandalism. I'm in the NPP/AFC group. That block of text is unsuitable for article content. Wikipedia is not a manual, nor is it instructive to readers in the manner that text. It also an illegal external link it. Don't revert it. I see your the person that added it in. scope_creep^Talk 01:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your being disruptive. The edit summary you left about the external link doesn't comply with WP:EXT at all. scope_creep^Talk 01:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Quenya, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Readdition of manual like text (similar to a warning), unsuitable for Wikipedia and containing illegal external links in the body of the article. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jellocube. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Quenya, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jellocube. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jellocube|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creep^Talk 01:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. UtherSRG (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]