JadeKrusade
August 2022 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Diablo II, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Stop writing your personal essays and diatribes and factoids. Writing original research is the cardinal sin WP:RS WP:OR. And on AIM alliance it was factually very false. Stop editing until you learn what an encyclopedia is. Users can be blocked for this. — Smuckola(talk) 01:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- These aren't personal essays. For IBM's personal systems group, all their PCs running Windows were never offered with PowerPC CPUs. JadeKrusade (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's called cherry-picked equivocation, basically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, has no relevancy to the article, and is still essentially false as I proved. If you have ever had any other Wikipedia account for any reason whatsoever, you must disclose it here. — Smuckola(talk) 06:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
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 Palette swap, you may be blocked from editing. Likewise, use only WP:RS and not WP:IMDB or fandom.com WP:USERGEN. Use detailed edit summaries, not zero summaries that you have been doing. You must name your past Wikipedia accounts immediately. — Smuckola(talk) 05:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot the add the link for Palette swap [1], although ending up it was redundant when you eliminated the article altogether. JadeKrusade (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Text source edit
Where exactly did you get all this content?[2] — Smuckola(talk) 08:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I thought some of the content under the Reception section, particularly on game library, also applied to the Launch section. In the process of re-wording it so that it isn't a direct duplicate of material. JadeKrusade (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Compaq into Rod Canion. 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) 22:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, will keep in mind. JadeKrusade (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Missing edit summaries edit
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Am not great at this but working to improve upon it, thank you for pointing it out. JadeKrusade (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Blocked as a sockpuppet edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.