"Jolly J" Fennimore

Welcome!

Hi "Jolly J" Fennimore! I noticed your contributions to Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ShowierData9978 (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Your edits on this article are unacceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your local police reporting hotline. None of the material you have added is relevant to an encyclopediac overview of this project. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Toxic Waste on the railway isn't relevant at all to you, and kids coming into contact with it isn't? The Toxic Waste on the railway is a crime, they could not prosecute the crime, because the guy that dumped it there; Denny, died before they found out he dumped it there.If you think the 'Choo-Choo' Chuck info isn't relevant, I understand, even though he wrote most of this Wikipedia page and didn't mention the Toxic Waste at all. Delete that part about him if you want. The kids riding on the railway is the only use anybody has had for this railway for half a century, while trains weren't using it and while this restoration was going on, so that is relevant and encyclopedic. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that your opinion shouldn't take precedent over facts. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am new to this, all I know is that there is no way possible that before 'Pi.1415926535' claimed that I didn't cite my sources, that Pi.1415926535 could not have read all of the citations before erroneously claiming that I didn't cite my sources. It would take nearly a whole day to read all of the EPA reports. I am a reporter and I know this because I had to read all of them for my investigative journalism. It is my job to get confirmation of facts. They mention kids riding ATVs in Toxic Waste Dump Pits in the EPA reports, so you really can't dispute that they are coming into contact with the potentially lethal Toxic Waste. Like I said, I cited Government documents and video, I don't know of any more reliable sources to cite than that, do you? I don't think it is right for someone to delete what I wrote and claim that it was not cited and when that didn't work, to claim it was a "screed". Like I said, I can only write the way I know how, it seems to me that the objection must be the writing style in which I stated and cited the facts. But that does not change that everything I wrote was fact and that (reliable) sources were cited. I thought that was what Wikipedia was for? Please correct me if I am wrong.I tried to eliminate any hyperbole, but writing for a "red top" has changed my writing style. Nonetheless, everything I wrote was fact. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, "Jolly J" Fennimore,

I haven't extensively reviewed this content on Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project but much of it is unsourced or poorly sourced (to a Google link?) and warrants being removed. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked, that's a red line that you don't get to cross without sanctions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is unsourced? If someone would tell me, I would remove it. I thought that was how this worked. I will look at it tomorrow and add the information back in slowly. Sentence by sentence on a day-by-day basis. If anybody has any problem with any sentence that is not cited, edit it. That is the best I can do. However, anyone saying that there is not Toxic Waste on that railway, specifically where I wrote it is, they are being dishonest. If anyone says Chuck Walsh didn't drive over that Toxic Distal Plume, right where the EPA and NJDEP says it is, they are being dishonest. Also, if anyone claims that kids aren't being exposed to it, they are being dishonest as the EPA and NJDEP writes about it in their reports. Thank you for your help. I do not know what "an edit war" is. I war with nobody and I am a peacenik. "Jolly J" Fennimore (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR. This was also provided to you earlier. Glance at the policy before trying to restore your edit again. Use the article’s talk page to discuss. Hy Brasil (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You have violated three Wikipedia policies in your recent edits to Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. You violated Biographies of living people when you called a person who has not been convicted in a court of law a criminal. You violated No original research by synthesizing a variety of sources to draw conclusions not stated in the sources. You also engaged in Edit warring by repeatedly trying to ram your changes through over the objections of several highly experienced editors. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing that article. You may make formal, well-referenced policy compliant Edit requests at Talk: Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Lackawanna Cut-Off Restoration Project. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)