User talk:Jgmac1106

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Situated cognition, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Situated cognition was changed by Jgmac1106 (u) (t) deleting 10161 characters on 2009-05-01T11:43:33+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Jgmac1106, a reminder that the above alert pertains to articles regarding Joe Biden’s vice-presidency. Please read again. starship.paint (exalt) 01:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification accepted into mainspace

I noticed you left a message on the talk page of the draft saying you'd be willing to help once editors feel it meets notability. Since I just accepted it, I thought I'd let you know. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

{{reply to|Chess}}

Great I will get a community effort on the page and edit in small bits so we don't get massive articles just copy pasta into place2601:188:180:5D40:280F:57DB:3B46:13EB (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cossacks into Ukrainian nationalism. 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) 15:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

UPA

You just removed ([1]) massive amount of content, which was supported by WP:RS, from the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article, please self-revert. Cheers Marcelus (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes most of the conent noted that the sources were not credible, further the article is written like a stub with details in the dfn that belong later in the article.

Further the connection to Stepan Bandera and the language used is quite biased Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss it in the talk page. Please, present your arguments, and we will discuss them. Maybe, you are right, but that is not obvious to me so far.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll add a note about this here: please read WP:APLECP as well as WP:GS/RUSUKR. You aren't supposed to edit articles relating to antisemitism in poland or the Russo-Ukrainian War if you don't have at least 500 edits Tristario (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cabinet wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Total War. 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) 06:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Your recent editing history at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, but I did ask for consensus on renaming the sections into history and people first and editors agreed. So I made the changes. Each change with a reliable source one revision at a time. Thus allowing each revision to be discussed as well as the reference.

You then asked me not to use so many primary sources. I went back and identified the one primary source I was using and added secondary sources that drew on that pirmary source. I noted this on the talk page.

All of my edits were then reverted when @helloelliot said I was biased for mentioning Banon and disinformation.

I then reverted the article back so I could address his concern in the talk page without losing all other edits. I even removed mention of Steve Banon.

I do not think I engaged in an edit war given my edits were in good faith, I addressed any comments left on the talk page, and even noted I would not edit further until we could discuss the issue on the talk page.

I don't even think this article needs to exist as it is redundant so many more but if it is going to exist I am happy to work with other editors to ensure it provides a well reliable and well sourced piece. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Jgmac you must use the exact correct user name during pings or it would not work. starship.paint (exalt) 01:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Your revert of my revert was the beginning of an edit war. When BRD is violated, that's the first shot fired. It's not BRRD. I totally AGF in your intentions. Shit happens. My first few articles and most edits were deleted almost immediately! That was in 2003. That was rough.

Your editing, small bits at a time, with edit summaries, was good. It's just that so much was added in a short time that editors can't deal with it, so it's easier to start over and use the talk page to seek consensus. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not know you rolled back the revert. I thought it was another editor.

I also was trying to address your concerns about primary sources. My apologies for causing extra work. Jgmac1106 (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Kakhovka Dam

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kakhovka Dam, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

S. Bandera

Hi, I reverted your edits ([2]) on Stepan Bandera because you included non WP:IMPARTIAL statements such as while other Ukrainians, particularly in the south and east, in part due due Russian disinformation, condemnd him as fascist and frame Bandera incorrectly as being responsible for massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians Marcelus (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is that violate WP:IMPARTIAL

I will go slower in the edits but please bring comments here before reverting.

First he was in a Concentration Camp. Saying "together" is wrong.

Efforts to define Stepan Bandera are a part of Russian Disinformation and have been since 1944.

Doroshenko, L., & Lukito, J. (2021). Trollfare: Russia’s disinformation campaign during military conflict in Ukraine. International Journal of Communication, 15, 28.

Erlich, A., & Garner, C. (2023). Is pro-Kremlin disinformation effective? Evidence from Ukraine. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(1), 5-28.

Romerstein, H. (2002). Divide and conquer: The KGB disinformation campaign against Ukrainians and Jews. The Ukrainian Quarterly, 48(4), 349-360.

Khaldarova, I. (2021). Brother or ‘Other’? Transformation of strategic narratives in Russian television news during the Ukrainian crisis. Media, war & conflict, 14(1), 3-20.

Kuzio, T. (2019). Old wine in a new bottle: Russia’s modernization of traditional Soviet information warfare and active policies against Ukraine and Ukrainians. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 32(4), 485-506.

There are dozens of peer review studies describing Russian disinformation around Bandera. It the controversy in the lead Russian efforts to shape the controversy should be mentioned. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Before further edits, please present them on Talk:Stepan Bandera. Especially describe those efforts of disinformation. Because if something was used by Russian or Soviet propaganda it doesn't mean it was false automatically. Marcelus (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Bausman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages National Justice Party, Richard Spencer and Lancaster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Jgmac1106. Thank you for your work on J. Kirk Wiebe. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good start.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)