Wiki Article
User talk:Jontel
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
Happy First Edit Anniversary Jontel 🎉
[edit]Hey @Jontel. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 14 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 20:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 23
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ethnic slurs, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim was added.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
CS1 error on Jason Arday
[edit]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jason Arday, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A unsupported parameter error. References show this error when you use a parameter name that does not exist. Please replace the parameter with one that the template supports, or remove it if no such parameter exists. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
- "Jason Arday's family 'incredibly moved' as fundraiser passes £200,000". Evening Standard. 18 August 2026. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|Work=ignored (|work=suggested) (help)
- "Jason Arday's family 'incredibly moved' as fundraiser passes £200,000". Evening Standard. 18 August 2026. Retrieved 18 August 2026.
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
No affirmative action here!
[edit]My initial reaction to this revert on Jason Arday - and its edit reason, "You have replaced a criticism with a defence", was of mild amusement. My edit wasn't motivated by being either positive or negative towards Cambridge, but I wasn't aware that only negative was permitted/all negative must be preserved! Actually IMO my change was a 'different negative' about Cambridge and my motivation was to more fully reflect Gopal's position, not to defend or criticise Cambridge.
Crudely Gopal thinks that Cambridge may well have hoped that Arday's media fame may have shown them in a good light, specifically deflected criticism of there being too few black students and academics at the University. Gopal thinks that greater diversity is a good thing, but that the actual outcome of this incident has harmed that. She is critical of Cambridge's actions, but is emphatic that the overall reality at Cambridge is very different from much of the coverage of this incident. Far from Cambridge commonly employing people because of their skin colour, or 'filling quotas', Cambridge remains very disproportionately white (almost 99% of academic staff according to BBC figures).
I felt that Gopal deserved more nuanced coverage than simply recording her criticisms of Cambridge's processes, but have since found that there is anyway somewhere better in the article, where her interview with Ch 4 is covered already.
I just wanted to record my edit reason, which doesn't need to be covered on talk IMO, so I came here. Pincrete (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
August 2026
[edit][1] This edit was obvious POV pushing to the point of near-disruptiveness. Please avoid such. Simonm223 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- I have the same issue with this later edit [2] which is clearly not constructive and is an obvious insertion of editorial POV, which in fact directly contradicts the sources cited (none are by 'anti-racist campaigners'.) You have been warned about your editorial conduct on this article multiple times. Please adhere to WP:VOICE. Whynotlol2 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think it is constructive to be accurate. They are clearly anti-racism campaigners, even if that is not explicitly stated in the precise sources cited. Commentators certainly does not describe them well. I do not see that it contradicts the sources cited. Editors do not seem to have a problem seeking to label Cofnas. Jontel (talk) Jontel (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- It is not accurate, and people have told you so on the article Talk page. Editors do, in fact, have a problem seeking to label Cofnas; there is a thread with over 175 comments on the issue. You are continuing to POV-push. Step back from the article for a while and reassess whether you are able to edit in good faith and without bias. Whynotlol2 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I do think it would be wise for you to take on board the cautions you have received both here and at article talk about POV pushing. I'm not saying "don't edit" - far from every edit you've made to that page has been problematic - but it's also pretty clear some of your edits would produce a page that is harsher on Arday and gentler on his attackers. Which, considering the fringe views that Cofnas, in particular, has openly expressed,
"after the revolution, I'll be the head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard"
, should give you cause for pause. Simonm223 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think it is constructive to be accurate. They are clearly anti-racism campaigners, even if that is not explicitly stated in the precise sources cited. Commentators certainly does not describe them well. I do not see that it contradicts the sources cited. Editors do not seem to have a problem seeking to label Cofnas. Jontel (talk) Jontel (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)