User talk:Sir Jack Hopkins

Talk page.

January 2023

Your username violates the following part of the username policy: Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, and either cause disruption to productive Wikipedia processes or discussions, or make harmonious editing difficult or impossible to achieve; e.g. by containing profanities, or referencing highly-contentious events or controversies. (emphasis added). I will give you 24 hours to voluntarily change your username. Cullen328 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

And how exactly do I change my username without creating a new account? PolPot1975 (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Changing username. You can switch to the desktop site on your phone by scrolling to the very bottom of any page and clicking on "desktop". That's how I do 99% of my editing. You are not helping yourself by accusing other editors of bad motives. You chose a disruptive username and any editor is free to bring it to the attention of administrators. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now requested a name change. I don't appreciate the hostility that has been shown towards me. Thank you for the help. PolPot1975 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no hostility for you. That would be unreasonable. I have presumed you to be a good-faith and constructive editor. Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you once more. PolPot1975 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2023 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I said this myself, that it was a pointless edit war and we should refer to the talk page. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Teles. I noticed that in this edit to Valery Karpin, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 19:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It was an editing error, not an act of vandalism. I'm very sorry for this. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Luck

I've been following the events on the 2023 talk page in the days since I was banned. The ban was lifted, but I expect it to be reapplied as soon as I post this. Anyway, I apologize for any hostility directed towards you and any accusations I launched your way. I can see you seem like one of the last sane Wikipedia editors and you're actually trying to include noteworthy events and improve the article for readers. Good luck dealing with these people going forward. They are ruining that article and I have no idea what their agenda is. But it is beyond bizarre.

Couple of points you might want to raise: The Sinoala Cartel is not 'old news', it's today (and has been for some time) the most powerful and widereaching criminal organization in existence. It dominates the global drug trade and generates obscene amounts of money. They have thousands of footsoldiers and 'employees' and cause immense harm and misery in vast swathes of the globe through their operations. Also, El Chapo's son WAS the leader according to US intel, or at least one of the several leaders. The exact hierarchy of these organizations is sketchy, for obvious reasons, but the article for El Chapo's son himself says he was presumably elevated to a position of head shortly after El Chapo's arrest. His arrest resulted in mass unrest and death and turned parts of Mexico into an effective warzone. Passenger planes were hit by bullets. Do you seriously think this would happen if El Chapo's son was not absolutely crucial to the cartel's operations and extremely highranking?

The editors claiming El Chapo's son was a 'nobody' and that the cartel itself is a 'shadow' are either very misinformed or they are deliberately lying about the situation. They're making very similar claims for the arrest of the mafia don who himself was responsible for several terrorist attacks in Italy in the past. Both arrests are VERY noteworthy and impacted massive criminal operations with their fingers in dozens of countries around the globe, and both arrests will have widereaching consequences for these organizations and the countries they operate in. 88.110.119.72 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I do appreciate it. Good luck to you too. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

ShaggyAnimate

I've noticed ShaggyAnimate keeps coming and I got them for socking. If there's anyone who's more childish in these pages, that's them. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides, I think it's worth looking into the possibility that the person who asked this question is the connected to the person who previously vandalised this article and had an obsession with including irrelevant Argentinian figures in the deaths section.

I 100% believe that's ShaggyAnimate and I have put them on the SPI here. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your "neutrality"

You are not neutral - you are systematically spreading age-old Russian imperialistic propaganda on Wikipedia. 213.184.49.21 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

And you are a politically charged twice-reported "editor" engaged in an edit war who is quick to assume bad faith. Stop it, please. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 St Johnstone F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2021 Scottish League Cup Final. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I forgot there were two finals so two possible redirects, my apologies. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE delete my edit history, and that of the other sockpuppets? Thank you. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging you @Ponyo to see my request. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)