User talk:JUMPp1harm

November 2023

Hi JUMPp1harm! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint that you are edit warring on certain articles

Please see:

WP:AN3#User:JUMPp1harm and User:KallebTigray reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: ).

There is an opening for you to respond to the complaint. Edit warring is against Wikipedia policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person lacks knowledge. Shouldn't I correct it when someone adds false or unreliable information? JUMPp1harm (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at Najashi, you may be blocked from editing. Specifically in this edit summary

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should I not fix incorrect information? JUMPp1harm (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should. But there's no need for the personal attacks (which you did in your edit summary). Please see WP:NPA. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najashi

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Najashi. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Socialwave597 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Regarding this edit, it's not enough that a quote is referenced in another Wikipedia article. If you want to add the quote, you need to check it against the source and cite that source where you're adding the quote. See WP:BURDEN on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Zara Yaqob have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Amhara people 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. Gyrofrog (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Zara Yacob.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Zara Yacob.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I can't tell for sure because the Commons image is already deleted, but if this is the same image as commons:File:Zara Yacob.jpg, then uploading it here constitutes disruptive editing. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you upload files in violation of copyright. It's the same image that was already deleted at Commons, and it's the same image as https://shewa.org/index/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Zere-Yacob-275x300.jpg (& the website doesn't clarify who made it, nor where they got it, etc.). You cannot keep adding it to Wikipedia (or for that matter, uploading it to Commons). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize but I would appreciate it if I could be informed about which specific image is considered to have violated copyright laws. If it's the latest one I uploaded, I've already discussed it with another administrator. Furthermore, all these images are already available in the Wikipedia image database, I just put them together so I'm confused about how they could be in violation of copyright laws. JUMPp1harm (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that I've been banned due to repeated copyright violations, not specifically for the most recent one. I acknowledge my mistakes with the previous violations, as I'm relatively new to this. However, I'm confused about how the most recent upload could breach copyright laws, as all the images used are already available on the Wikipedia image database. I just combined them and added it because I believed it would fit the page better. I discussed this with another administrator, who advised me to indicate their source image exactly despite the fact that the images are already present in the pages of the respective depictions, which I promptly did. Therefore, I'm unclear on why these actions were deemed as copyright violations and why the edits were reverted. JUMPp1harm (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those images is marked as copyrighted at the source [1]. You're not banned, but you are blocked until this is sorted out. Acroterion (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't personally upload the image. As I mentioned earlier, all these images were already accessible on the Wikipedia image database. I found the photographer's name and searched for the link, so I shared it. However, the source linked from the image on the Wikipedia database is different. Should I have posted the same source as in the database? I assumed it didn't matter since I shared the photographer. Hence, I'm puzzled about why my edit was reverted. I understand facing a block for previous images.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emperor_Haile_Selassie_I_Official_Photographic_portrait.png JUMPp1harm (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake in good faith. But don’t restore the image, and you were edit=warring to keep it in. Don’t do that. I will unblock, on the condition that you reconsider your approach to images and repeated reversions. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible for me to correct the copyright violation on the image and add it? I was discussing about it with the user on his page. Overall, I feel like it enhances the page's coherence and relevance. I would at least ask you to look at the reasoning JUMPp1harm (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's copyrighted from the source, there is no "correcting." Whether museums have the right to copyright their own derivative works (which is what that is) is a separate matter that the WMF and others are arguing with museums about, but until that is legally settled, we can't upload or use any images that have a clear copyright notice, like that one has. Acroterion (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant replacing it with a different picture that's not copyrighted JUMPp1harm (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you're going to edit-war for its inclusion. Get consensus first. Acroterion (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing it with the user but he hasn't replied since my last message. I think its okay if I change it. Have you seen my reasoning for changing the image? What are your personal thoughts. Which image is better for the page JUMPp1harm (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not OK. If you revert without gaining consensus (whether the images contain a copyright violation or not), I will block you for edit-warring. I am not going to comment on the image change, administrators are not arbiters of content. Get agreement. Acroterion (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as I mentioned, I've been in discussion with the user, but it's been some time since I received a response. How long am I supposed to wait? Honestly, this situation is becoming frustrating. Does coherence and relevance not hold importance in Wikipedia? Here I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to enhance pages to the best of our ability. Yet here I am, facing scrutiny for trying to improve pages. Is it all about ensuring editors don't exceed a certain number of reverts, even if one of those changes improves the page? Absurd JUMPp1harm (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bold suggestion, other editors aren't at your beck and call. People have lives. If an individual editor isn't responding on their talk page, seek consensus on the article talk page. TarnishedPath^talk 02:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already responded to him. Some time ago in fact. Abrasax123 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on you. I only came here because of the copyright issues that I noticed elsewhere. TarnishedPath^talk 03:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't responded to my message JUMPp1harm (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That account is not mine. How am I able to prove that it isn't mine? JUMPp1harm (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to correct the copyright violation. Per https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/19235/ there is an unambiguous copyright attribution on that image. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to address the accusations of puppetry that have been leveled against me. No one responded to my previous unban request I made a few days ago, so I decided to submit another one. I don't want to come across as overly persistent or annoying, but I sincerely hope you can recognize that this situation is a misunderstanding, and I am innocent. I want to emphasize that I have no involvement in any type of puppetry, whether it be sock puppetry or meat puppetry. I have never engaged in any form of coordinated editing or collaboration with other users. My sole intention as a independent contributor on Wikipedia has always been to improve pages and contribute positively to the platform. I understand that there have been some misunderstandings and issues regarding my edits, particularly concerning copyright issues. However, I want to clarify that any mistakes I have made were not indicative of any malicious intent or involvement in puppetry of any kind. I have previously requested to have my IP checked in an effort to prove my truthfulness, but apparently that's not possible. Nevertheless, I am willing to cooperate fully with any measures that can help establish my innocence. I don't know what else I can say or do. I have explained my perspective thoroughly in my previous unban requests, and I hope that you can see that I am merely an innocent individual caught up in this situation. I sincerely apologize for any disruption my actions may have caused and assure you that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines JUMPp1harm (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing this request as there's an older request open below. SQL ^{Query Me!} 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

JUMPp1harm (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no association with the User:BasedHistorian PHD. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BasedHistorian_PHD I initially replaced Zara Yaqob's image from this one (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zara_Yacob.png) with one that was later deleted, as it was being used on his pages in other languages. You can google lens the image and see for yourself as it shows the image being used before it was later deleted. I believed they should all match. I've mentioned this before—I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and didn't fully understand the guidelines at the time. I haven't reuploaded it since realizing my mistake. This is a coincidence. That account does not belong to me. JUMPp1harm (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] :

Decline reason:

The behavioral evidence is convincing. This is not a coincidence. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

How can I prove that this account isn't mine?

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I swear I have no association with the user I am accused of. Any similarity in behavior is coincidental. This is a mistake. I am committed to upholding Wikipedia's principles. How can I prove that this account is not mine? :.

Decline reason:

That's up to you to figure out. You need to start by addressing the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BasedHistorian_PHD. Yamla (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Yamla:I initially replaced Zara Yaqob's image from this one (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zara_Yacob.png) with one that was later deleted, as it was being used on his pages in other languages. You can google lens the image and see for yourself as it shows the image being used before it was later deleted (https://kids.kiddle.co/Image:Zara_Yacob.jpg). I believed they should all match. I've mentioned this before I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and didn't fully understand the guidelines at the time. I haven't reuploaded it since realizing my mistake. Again, I swear this is a pure coincidence. That account does not belong to me nor have I ever heard of such a user.

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I initially replaced Zara Yaqob's image from this one (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zara_Yacob.png) with one that was later deleted, because it was being used on his pages in other languages. You can google lens the image and see for yourself as it shows the image being used before it was later deleted (https://kids.kiddle.co/Image:Zara_Yacob.jpg). I believed all pages should match. I've mentioned this before I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and didn't fully read and understand the guidelines at the time with copyright. I acknowledge that this was my mistake, and I now have a better understanding of these guidelines. I haven't reuploaded it since realizing my mistake. Once more, I would like to stress any similarity in behavior is purely coincidental. I have no affiliation with that account, nor am I familiar with its user. I assure you that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines moving forward. My intentions have always been to contribute positively JUMPp1harm (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if I believed this was a coincidence, that would only make this meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[2] I blocked this IP range for block evasion 15 minutes before this request was posted. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? Im confused what this has to do with my request. If you're assuming that's me, you're mistaken. That IP address and account doesn't belong to me. I understand why it might seem that way, and honestly I don't even blame you. I think god must be against me at this point cause this is just ridiculous. I swear on my life this is a pure coincidence. Can't administrators check users' IP addresses? You can confirm that's not me. I haven't attempted to circumvent my ban. I wouldn't engage in such an obviously foolish act. Do you honestly believe that while earnestly seeking to be get unbanned, I would simultaneously try to evade the ban and promptly make another request right after my supposed account was banned? Seriously? Believe me, if I were attempting to circumvent my ban, which I'm not, I certainly wouldn't do it in such a blatant and foolish manner. And the fact that this user isn't even registered and is editing. I would never engage in such behavior and expose my IP address to the public eye. You just banned an innocent man JUMPp1harm (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins cannot check IP addresses. Checkusers can, but per policy do not do so at the request of a user(see WP:CHECKUSER). And yes, people do attempt to evade blocks while blocked and asking to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, I'm not a moron. I am genuinely being sincere. I wouldn't do something that stupid. I didn't want make too many unblock requests in a day so I waited till the next day. I was out and I just got home and was watching the Lakers vs Bucks game and I decided to make my request. And it is not meat puppetry. Dude I had no idea what the hell that even was before you linked it. I have absolutely zero association with the user I am being accused of. What can I do for someone to believe me? JUMPp1harm (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the resolution then? Why can't I have it checked? It seems like that's the only way to get anyone to believe me. I'm telling you, man, those accounts aren't mine. I've never even heard of them or reached out to them. What else can I do to convince you? If I can't get my IP checked to back up my words, then what am I supposed to do to prove my truthfulness. I've already clarified the situation regarding Zara Yaqob situation, but this latest one with all due respect is just absurd. Is anyone that edits the Amhara people page my account? I haven't done any sock puppeting, meat puppeting or any time of puppeting JUMPp1harm (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to address the accusations of puppetry that have been leveled against me. I want to emphasize that I have no involvement in any type of puppetry, whether it be sock puppetry or meat puppetry. I have never engaged in any form of coordinated editing or collaboration with other users. My sole intention as a independent contributor on Wikipedia has always been to improve pages and contribute positively to the platform. I understand that there have been some misunderstandings and issues regarding my edits, particularly concerning copyright issues. However, I want to clarify that any mistakes I have made were not indicative of any malicious intent or involvement in puppetry of any kind. I have previously requested to have my IP checked in an effort to prove my truthfulness, but apparently that's not possible. Nevertheless, I am willing to cooperate fully with any measures that can help establish my innocence. I don't know what else I can say or do. I have explained my perspective thoroughly in my previous unban requests, and I hope that you can see that I am merely an innocent individual caught up in this situation. I sincerely apologize for any disruption my actions may have caused and assure you that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JUMPp1harm (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to request an unblock of my account. I want to emphasize that I have not engaged in coordinated editing, but I understand that my actions may have raised suspicions, and I take full responsibility for any misunderstandings. I have made previous unban requests and have explained my side thoroughly, aiming to clarify these misunderstandings. I am fully committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Moving forward, I will ensure all my contributions are transparent and in full compliance with standards. To prevent future issues, I will strictly follow Wikipedia guidelines, seek guidance from experienced editors before significant edits, and avoid any behavior that could be perceived as disruptive. I am passionate about making useful and constructive contributions to Wikipedia. I am eager to demonstrate my commitment to Wikipedia’s mission through my future contributions. I sincerely apologize for any disruption caused by my previous actions. I hope you can see my genuine commitment to improving and adhering to Wikipedia’s standards. I am ready to cooperate fully to re-establish trust and am pleading for another chance to prove myself.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request reads like it was created by AI. You need to be more specific. You should say what topics you want to edit. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

JUMPp1harm (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

@Acroterion: I'm writing to address the ban placed on my account and the accusations of puppetry that have been leveled against me. I submitted an unban request a few days ago but have not received a response yet. I would greatly appreciate it if an administrator could review my case and provide guidance on how I can resolve this issue. I sincerely hope you can see i am an innocent individual. JUMPp1harm (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already reviewed once before. We don’t do multiple reviews of a single user’s request. Acroterion (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is that just it then? I can't get unbanned? I've provided a thorough explanation, I hope you realize this is a mistake JUMPp1harm (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A given administrator should only review once, then leav3 it to another admin. Acroterion (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I pinged you because it's been a few days since someone responded to my unban request, and I wasn't sure who else to reach out to for assistance JUMPp1harm (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am unsure of what to do. It has been over a month without any response. I urge you to reconsider. Although you mentioned that a single review by an administrator is sufficient, I am uncertain what to do at this point. Its been over a month and no response to my request. Should I make another one? JUMPp1harm (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I hope you're doing well. I’m reaching out because my unban appeal has been pending for sometime now, and I haven’t received any updates. I’m worried it might have been missed. I understand the rules around sock puppeting are strict, but I genuinely believe there’s been a misunderstanding in my case. I’m committed to following all Wikipedia guidelines and contributing positively to the community. Could you please reconsider? Your help in resolving this would mean a lot to me. I really value the work done by Wikipedia and the opportunity to contribute to such an important resource. I'm eager to get back to editing and helping improve articles.

فك حاضر

فيس بوك تم ح 178.77.140.148 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

فك حاضر 178.77.140.148 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? JUMPp1harm (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

@PhilKnight: I did use AI to paraphrase what I wanted to write and make it more refined. I didn't know that as a problem. I just want to be unbanned. I don't have specific topics in mind to edit, just general improvements where I see errors, likely focusing on topics related to the Horn of Africa. JUMPp1harm (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you write a new unblock request without AI. PhilKnight (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what the issue is with using AI. I used AI to help articulate my thoughts more clearly because my writing isn't the best. Is it really necessary to make another unblock request because I used AI? if I must, what should I include in it. It just takes too long for a response to my unban requests. My recent one took nearly 3 weeks. Please consider my request for unban, and I assure you of my commitment to follow all policies strictly in the future. JUMPp1harm (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But here's the basic problem: in order to trust you enough to allow you to post again, administrators want to hear what you understand, not what an AI can organize for you. There's no differentiation between a generic statement generated by a chatbot out of the user's understanding and a generic statement by a chatbot that the chatbot completely wrote. So on what basis could an admin possibly evaluate your understanding of Wikipedia policies and your actions?

It doesn't matter if your writing isn't the best, the ideas you communicate are what's important. And, to be blunt, being able to communicate in English well enough to describe Wikipedia's basic policies is an absolute prerequisite for participating on English Wikipedia. There's no shame in only editing Wikis in a language in which you're fluent; I'm conversational in French, German, and Spanish, but not to the degree that I can demonstrate my understanding of sockpuppetry or reliable sourcing, so I do not participate on those projects.

What should be included in your unblock request is directly answering all the questions administrators have asked of you. And yes, there's always a backlog in unblock requests; this project is run by volunteers, and unblocks are not emergencies to be prioritized. And that it took nearly three weeks doesn't mean that nobody reviewed it as one very likely possibility is that it simply didn't convince any admins to unblock you. Admins try to give editors the benefit of the doubt, so if an admin isn't convinced, they may just not take action in order for another admin to possibly grant the unblock request, rather than simply declining it outright. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding. I know English and understand very well about this situation and I have read up on some of the Wikipedia policies. This isn't rocket science. I simply asked ChatGPT to paraphrase my writing to fix grammar or punctuations mistakes, if there were any. I have said all I can say in my previous unban requests and I have answered all the questions I have been asked to the best of my ability, laying out my side of the argument. I genuinely don't know what more I can say. JUMPp1harm (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly more machine in that statement than grammar/punctuation. And as a result, nobody has any way to determine what part of that is AI and what part of that is you.

You certainly haven't given any indication that you understand copyright other than simply asserting the bare fact that you do.

In any case, your best chance of being unblocked is likely WP:OFFER. If you keep sending unconvincing block requests, it becomes probable than an admin will remove your talk page access.

Best wishes to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You certainly haven't given any indication that you understand copyright other than simply asserting the bare fact that you do"

It's not rocket science. What do you want me to do then? I've been trying for almost four months to get unbanned now. I have answered every question to the best of my ability. I have read through the Wikipedia policies regarding unban requests for sock puppeting. I have explained my situation to the best of my ability. I have offered to get my IP checked to prove my innocence, but apparently that's not possible. Look, man, I am getting tired of doing this. Can you be a bit more specific in what I have to include in my unblock requests? JUMPp1harm (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, for one, don't use AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several requests and only the most recent one has been denied for using AI. Sorry its just something new that I keep getting denied for and I keep explaining and answering more questions for the past 4 months. Now it's because of AI. I am getting tired and worn out. I just want to edit again. Put yourself in my shoes. I won't use it further. Can you be more specific in what I am supposed to include in my unban request? JUMPp1harm (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I’m writing to request an unblock, and this time I’ve written everything myself, without using AI. I realize that my previous use of AI might have made it hard for you to see my real thoughts and understanding. I’m sorry about that and won’t use AI for this again. I know I was blocked for sockpuppetry and copyright issues previously, and I’ve taken time to really understand the rules around these things. I’ve read through the policies, the guidelines on sockpuppetry, reliable sourcing, and copyright, and I get why they’re important. I have explained my situation multiple times in my previous unban requests. I just want to get back to contributing to Wikipedia, especially on topics related to the Horn of Africa. I know I’ve made mistakes, and I’m sorry for that. Thanks for considering my request JUMPp1harm (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 accepted the request.

JUMPp1harm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I am kindly writing to respectfully request that my account be unblocked again. I understand that my previous actions have raised concerns, particularly regarding sock puppetry and copyright violations. I would like to directly address these concerns. First, regarding the accusations of sock puppetry, I want to say again that I have no connection to the accounts I am being associated with. I understand that behavioral similarities can trigger suspicion, but I assure you this is a coincidence. Moving forward, I will be extremely cautious to avoid any behavior that might cause confusion or appear as coordinated editing. Regarding the copyright issues, I now fully understand that images must comply with Wikipedia’s licensing requirements. My mistake was due to a lack of understanding on my part, and I now realize that I should have read the guidelines before making that edit. I have since read the relevant Wikipedia policies, and I am committed to only uploading content that complies with these standards. I am passionate about contributing to Wikipedia, particularly in areas related to the Horn of Africa, and history where I believe I can make a positive impact. I also plan to contribute in general, such as improving citations and correcting grammar. If unblocked, I will ensure that all of my future edits are fully compliant with Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you for considering my request. I understand the reasons behind my block, and I am committed to being a responsible and constructive contributor to Wikipedia. I hope you will give me another chance to prove myself. JUMPp1harm (talk) 7:52 pm, 21 September 2024, Saturday (26 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

I am inclined to accept on the basis of the promise of complying with image licensing, and the understanding that it is extremely easy to spot such behavior if it is repeated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zaga Christ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duchy of Tuscany. 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) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your edit to Habesha peoples has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for violating copyright before. You just got unblocked last week. I would love an explanation for why you copied and pasted text from a source. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was late, and I was tired. I already edited a bunch that day and I wanted to quickly clarify the information and go to bed, so I did it without fully considering the implications. I apologize JUMPp1harm (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're on thin ice right now. You were just unblocked for copyright violations "I wanted to quickly clarify the information and go to bed" is no excuse at this point. I'm going to ping Rosguill, who unblocked you, just so he's aware. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt as long you agree to be VERY careful about the content you add next time. Just remember, next time it will be another block. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 21:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright alright, I promise it won't happen again. JUMPp1harm (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]