SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of June 2023.

Hello, CastJared, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place ((Help me)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 20:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

About your AFD votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed that you always use "Agreed with all the editors involved" for "strong" stances, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Your votes are WP:MAJORITY and should be avoided. You are encouraged to point out which guidelines you are referring, and please do some background research before voting to make a meaningful vote. Also please utilize the use of "strong". Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CastJared you are still making poor quality votes at AFD that vaguely say you agree with another editor, rarely if ever specifying a policy. Remember, these discussions are not a numerical vote.
It's also unhelpful to comment on an AFD just to say that you don't have an opinion either way. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
besides not being policy based, your !votes are often incomprehensible. Please take better care to give clear input when you participate at AfD (or elsewhere). Star Mississippi 02:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CastJared,
I came here to say the same thing and it looks like I'm not alone. You are very active weighing in on AFD deletion discussions but it's not clear whether you have thoroughly evaluated the article in question, assessed the sources and maybe even looked for and located additional reliable sources to help preserve an article. Please take each nomination seriously, don't base your vote solely on the nomination statement or other editors' opinions. Don't be focused on quantity of discussions you participate in or your AFD stats but on the quality of your participation. Evaluating articles in a helpful way takes time and effort and if you don't want to invest that effort, please find another area of the project to help out in. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if there any involvement, like it does not cite any sources, or even un-notable that fails WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not citing sources, or having involvement are not reasons for deletion, and some of your recent input remains unclear *Keep: It has multiple citations, also it need multiple reliable citations for this article. or wrong *:This draft does not cite any sources. (citations aren't required for drafts that aren't yet submitted). I really suggest learning more about policy before continuing to participate or you may find yourself losing access to do so. Star Mississippi 13:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies (June 17)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by BuySomeApples was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: I'm declining this draft, and while I know that's a bit final, there are a few good reasons why I doubt this topic will warrant a standalone page.

The first is that most of these controversies are already present on the Wikipedia pages for each television series. For example Game of Thrones and Leaving Neverland both have sections dedicated to their respective controversies.

The second reason is WP:DUEWEIGHT. HBO has broadcast a huge number of television shows and films, including original productions. Many releases will have some level of controversy, but it's not necessary, feasible or even helpful to readers to put that all on one page. A section summarizing controversies from each show would not be allowed on the HBO page for that reason.

There really doesn't seem to be a rationale for creating this page. I do appreciate the work you put into this, and maybe you can add some content to the series' pages if anything is missing. That way it's not a wasted effort.

BuySomeApples (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, CastJared! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My draft have lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. The specific problem is: Entire draft of each content are forked out. The entire draft will be rewritten it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. CastJared (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: HBO controversies has been accepted

HBO controversies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– Joe (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of HBO controversies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article HBO controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HBO controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  signed, Rosguill talk 00:51, 22 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I stating that I should have competence. CastJared (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a valid unblock request rationale, consensus forming at ANI that this was a good block. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2023 (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.

More