User talk:Jurry78

Revert[edit]

Hi there! I've reverted a recent edit of yours on the implicit bias training article, as there's no need to wikilink students. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above notice, nearly all your edits will be reverted for MOS:OVERLINK.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sesame Street (fictional location). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link to articles[edit]

I see that many of your edits have added links from one article to another, known as "wikilinks". Wikilinks can be very helpful, but it is a very common mistake among new editors to add too many wikilinks to articles. Generally speaking, a wikilink should be added only if it provides information which is likely to help readers of the article in which the link is placed to understand content of that article, or provide further information closely connected to content of that article. Helping readers "to understand content of that article" usually means a link to a page which either explains words or expressions in the article or providing background information which is necessary in order to understand content of that article. Linking to articles in other situations is not just unnecessary, it is actually harmful, because research has established that the more irrelevant, or only slightly relevant, links there are in a page, the less likely readers are to find the ones which they are likely to find useful. Thus, for example, nobody reading the article Burmese Market is likely to need to consult the article school in order to understand what "children's books" means, nor does the article school contain any information about Burmese Market, so linking the one to the other is not likely to be helpful. Please bear that in mind, and before adding any Wikilinks to articles think carefully whether they are likely to be helpful. Also, it is not usually considered desirable to have more than one copy of a wikilink in an article. JBW (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023--more of same[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing link problems[edit]

You don't seem to have taken on board what I said above about wikilinks, because a very large proportion of you editing still consists of adding unsuitable links. If you really can't see that it is not constructive to link to Beer at Free Beer, to [[Earth] at List of Kaizoku Sentai Gokaiger characters, to France, Spain, and Portugal at Andreas Heusser, or to United States at Chiyo Uno, to give just a few examples, then you would be much better advised not to add wikilinks to articles at all. Worse still was linking Graham McDonald to McDonald at Jeff Duff, because the target of the link is a page which doesn't even mention Graham McDonald. Please stop. If you continue in this way you are likely to be blocked from editing. Also editors may decide to mass roll back all of your editing, because searching through and checking each edit one by one to decide which to revert is too time consuming; that would truly be a pity, because some of your editing is perfectly good, and that would be lost along with the bad edits. JBW (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jurry78, I've blocked you from editing main space because you've been warned multiple times by various editors on how to apply our manual of style, but your editing patterns show that you haven't bothered to listen to them. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]