Jeyne Reyne
Hello, Jeyne Reyne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
May 2022 edit
Hello, I'm Netherzone. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not remove sourced material just because you personally disagree. It's fine to remove spam or promotion, however on more than one article, for example Atari video game burial and Chicken à la King you removed citations and sourced content. In the future, please consider using the article talk pages to start a discussion first. If a link has expired, it can be fixed via the Internet Archive or Wayback Machine and other tools - so instead of deleting the content, please replace the dead link with an archived replacement. Also, there is no need for edit summaries that could be perceived as snarky, you will probably enjoy your time here more deeply if you edit and communicate with a spirit of collaboration. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I’d like to reiterate: this is good advice, please heed it. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
January 2023 edit
Hello, I'm Trailblazer101. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Flash (film) 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. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
March 2023 - WP:DISRUPTIVE / WP:TENDITIOUS / WP:CIVILITY edit
In my opinion you're in consistent violation of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:Civility.
WP:DISRUPTIVE says: "A disruptive editor is an editor who [...] is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors."
WP:TENDITIOUS elaborates: "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained editorial bias, or with a clear editorial viewpoint contrary to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. A single edit is unlikely to be a real problem, but a pattern of edits displaying an editor's bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits of a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing".
WP:CIVILITY says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. A continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable."
You have a track record of removing references (often cited) in articles to non-white ethnicities, non-heterosexual sexual orientations, and female empowerment. A lot of those edits were subsequently reverted. You also frequently slip veiled or not-so-veiled insults into your edit summaries.
Looking at all of your edits made so far in 2023:
- January 1: Uncivil edit summary ("sourced by cookie-farm clickbait")
- January 7: Removed reference to a character's ethnicity, calling it "irrelevant" in the edit summary; this edit was reverted
- February 25: Changed the wording of a direct quote; this edit was reverted
- March 4: Removed content about racial stereotyping in a movie and summarized the change uncivilly ("Removed opinion piece by a nobody sourced by an unreliable, janky and busted website"); this edit was reverted
- March 4: Removed content about racial stereotyping in a TV show, and unilaterally declared it "inaccurate" in the edit summary
- March 4: Removed section on female empowerment in fiction and a character potentially not being heterosexual, and summarized uncivilly ("removed uncited nonsense")
- March 4: Removed section on female empowerment in fiction, and summarized uncivilly and in a way that clearly showed that you're pushing an agenda ("removed speculative, agenda-building drivel with no referential value"); this edit was reverted
- March 4: Removed reference to a character's ethnicity; this was the third time you'd done so and the third time your edit was reverted
So 6 of your 8 edits so far this year were attempts to suppress discussion of non-white, non-heterosexual, and/or non-male characters; 6 of your 8 edits contained arguably uncivil edit summaries; and 5 of your 8 edits were reverted.
Please stop.
Stephen Hui (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well thanks for helping nail my points home in your opening of “in my opinion”. This is a site dedicated to being a reference for information, not what, why or who has what opinion on said information. Consider a classic encyclopaedia set if you will for a moment and that in a pre-internet era you wanted to look up information about the battle at the Plains of Abraham. You will find the known information pertaining to that, you will not find “Joe Blow of Clickbait-Weekly Newsmagazine thinks such, such and such about the events”and as he runs a printing press in his basement, this therefore makes his opinions worthy to be recorded for posterity.
- Please consider this in the future and endeavour with me to help keep this a place where people can still turn when they want objective information on a subject.
- Furthermore, while I do not personally understand this strange American phenomena surrounding fictional characters needing to be linked to the tumultuous politics of that nation, that lens is not viewed through by the entire English speaking population of the world. There are people from all walks of life trying to keep this site somewhat reputable and believe it or not, it does not solely revolve around the culture war of the USA. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
February 2024 edit
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 Jim Cornette, 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. Thank you. Spagooder (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Jim Cornette, especially if it involves living persons. Your edits have been reverted. Thank you. LM2000 (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Considering this is firsthand information provided in a public forum by the subject himself it seems counterintuitive to have “secondhand confirmed sources” which account to some blowhard’s option about it on the internet. This is a confirmed case that happened and is widely acceptable to the public and trying to pretend it didn’t through Wikipedia politics only lends further credence. Jeyne Reyne (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please read the relevant policies (eg. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV) instead of re-engaging in disruptive editing. Your portrayal of it is excessively inaccurate, which is exacerbated in the context of the BLP policy. In your own words, "please consider this in the future and endeavour with me to help keep this a place where people can still turn when they want objective information on a subject." Spagooder (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)