User talk:Jamiejagger2006

August 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kering have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kering was changed by Jamiejagger2006 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.87051 on 2025-08-23T13:33:46+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Great Replacement conspiracy theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing

This edit [1] is tendentious and the edit summary assumes bad faith. This kind of thing can get you in trouble here. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

You have recently made edits related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. This is a standard message to inform you that the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Great Replacement conspiracy theory and White genocide conspiracy theory) for edit warring and general disruption.

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 ~~~~}}.

Salvio giuliano

12:07, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring final warning

Despite being warned, you are continuing to engage in edit warring in a vain attempt to force your preferred version of articles. This is completely unacceptable. We do not move forward on this project by using brute force to have our way. I'm sure a person of your intellect can understand that a room full of people all pushing each other isn't going to lead to progress. Consider this a final warning. If you engage in edit warring again, you will be blocked. It has nothing to do with your opinions, views, desires, etc. It has to do with the reality that edit warring here is NOT ACCEPTABLE. This ends. NOW. I hope I've been clear. If not, don't continue what you have been doing. Instead, ask questions. Continuing as you have been is NOT an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPA block

You have been blocked for one week from editing for attacking other editors, as you did at WP:ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiejagger2006, personally I think you got off light here. Given your tendentious, aggressive editing and now personal attacks, I would have gone for an indefinite length block. If you continue such behavior it almost certainly will be indefinite. Choose wisely. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

I've closed this ANI thread with consensus for a community-imposed siteban. You can request an unban at a later date by following these instructions. Thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:44, 4 September 2025 (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).

Jamiejagger2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Politically motivated ban that does not reflect editing contributions made. Administrators took a belligerent approach to my account off the bat, and thus the impartiality of their decision making is up for debate

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: the community has decided to ban you, not any one admin, so all we could do would be to copy this appeal over to the admin noticeboard, where it would (likely) be promptly declined because it's only been one day since it was imposed, with instructions not to appeal again for a certain time. Please review the instructions leeky linked above before taking any further steps. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2025 (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.

I'm not an admin, but repeatedly violating political taboos makes the political ban seem appropriate. And I'm a neoliberal. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a political ban may be appropriate, but i edit articles on finance that i now cannot edit at all.

a controversial thing to be nowadays, but you are probably correct. Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i also apologise for being more than a little of an asshole (a very substantial one tbh) Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had said this yersterday, you might have been able to stop this train wreck... Unfortunately, the train has now derailed, has caught fire and the tracks as well have started come unstuck, if you catch my meaning. So it's going to take a bit more to undo the damage.
Specifically, since you have been banned by the community and not by a single admin, you can only be unbanned by the community themselves, which will require another discussion and that will take some time. I suggest you take some time away from Wikipedia, let the air clear and come back in a few months with a new request, where you accept responsibility for what went wrong and ask to let back in.
If you edit in the meantime, it will be considered socking/block evasion and will lead to blocks, in addition to making your eventual return more difficult. —

Salvio giuliano

13:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, insincere apology rescinded, this is ridiculous.

never met a group of people so thin skinned and offended. classical leftists though. Jamiejagger2006 (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decided to use your talk page in a vain attempt to insult people, I revoked your talk page access. As Salvio guiliano noted, if you attempt to use sockpuppets to get around this block, it won't go well for you. A great, great many people have tried this before, thinking they're somehow creative and have come up with a winning solution. It doesn't work. It never does. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]