User talk:Jab7842

A few protected pages out of many that I, Jab7842, am willing to edit/create/delete if I become an administrator:

Pages to edit:

Pages to create:

Pages to delete:

You deleting/moving the page I created and changing my user page.

Hi Jab7842.
Regarding your recent deletion of Talk:Prostitution/MsBatfisharticleworkpage and moving its contents to User:MsBatfish/Prostitution:

It would have really been helpful if you had left me a note either on my user talk page or on Talk:Prostitution, as opposed to just moving my Prostitution article workpage without even asking or notifying me and modifying my user page [here]. It would be nice to know why you took it upon yourself to move the workpage, for example. When I created that page, it was my understanding that pages like that are not supposed to exist as user subpages. Specifically that copying an article in it's entirety for the purpose of making draft edits is not supposed to take place in a user subpage but is allowed in an article talk subpage. If you thought that I had misinterpreted that you could have just told me.

Fortunately, however, I was already considering getting the page deleted myself because I haven't really used it as much as I thought it would, as I said on the Prostitution talk page under Talk:Prostitution#Making a new workpage for this article. But I was only at the stage of thinking about deleting it and had also asked if anyone else wanted to use it. I am not sure whether that had anything to do with you moving it or not.

Anyway, some communication abut this would have been nice. -MsBatfish (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the post above because it seems you have deleted it before replying to it. Jab7842: this is a collaborative project. Please do not make any edits if you are not prepared to discuss them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was supposed to be in the user namespace. -- Jab7842 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. well thanks for replying finally. In the future when you are thinking of deleting or moving a page it is good practice to check for any relevant discussions first and, when appropriate, to notify the creator and/or main editors (when applicable). In this case you would have seen a relevant discussion (where that issue was already mentioned) and you could have just added a comment/question there or on my talk page. I notice you want to be an admin, and I think it's extremely important for admins to be able to communicate with other users about things like this. In addition, it's also good practice to include an edit summary to explain your actions, particularly when making major changes. This can also end up saving you time, since people would see an explanation for why you did something and would be less likely to have to ask you why you did it, or to revert it because they didn't understand your reasoning.

And, at the bare minimum, please respond when someone asks you to explain an edit. Thanks. -MsBatfish (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

You have again deleted the post above without making any response, as you have done numerous times previously. This suggests to me that you have no desire or ability to collaborate with other editors. In order to emphasise how vital this is in this project, I am blocking your account until you can demonstrate that you understand the concept of discussion and are willing to engage with others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Jab7842 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you check the revision history of my talk page you can clearly see that I was performing a test, and removed the comments without noticing. I am deeply sorry if this cost anyone any inconvenience. -- Jab7842 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

To clarify, removing things from your talk page is not the issue, as you're certainly allowed to do that. It's that, when people have brought complaints about your editing to you, you've done only that and nothing more. That's refusal to discuss, which is disruptive and blockable. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (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.

Unfortunately, one needs only to look at the history of your talkpage to see that rather than WP:ARCHIVE, you simply delete when you think you've dealt with it, rather than responding. It's your modus operandi since day 1. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit that that has been my "way of operating," but in this case it was clearly different. -- Jab7842 (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and you're not blocked for one incident; you're blocked for it being your overall pattern of behaviour, and your "mistake" was merely the straw on the camel's back ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jab7842 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I now see how not discussing contributions in a collaborative project, as in Wikipedia, is very disruptive. I will now try to respond to every message on this talk page. Once again, I am sorry that my edits have caused inconvenience to other editors. -- Jab7842 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per your assurances in this request and per your response above, I am unblocking you. Please try to keep in mind that this is a collaborative project. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to say that I found your expressed intention of editing a large number of standard templates very alarming, should you become an admin, what would your reaction be? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask your opinion on what to do. -- Jab7842 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would say don't do it!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see that you will make an effort to respond in future. Perhaps you would like to make a start at #You deleting/moving the page I created and changing my user page.? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Jab7842 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)

The article FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Vernon B. Romney, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD U1 tagging of other editor's pages

Please do not tag other editor's user pages with CSD U1 as you did with User:Sparthorse. CSD U1 is only for use by the editor themselves. Sparthorse has choosen to have a blank user page and that is their choice. User pages are not subject to deletion upon blanking unlike articles with CSD G7. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that user pages were subject to deletion upon blanking like articles with CSD G7, sorry my mistake. -- Jab7842 (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Wikipedia:User pages

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Disambiguation

This is an unnecessary change: {{Disambig}} redirects to {{Disambiguation}} and there is no need to make the switch. Please stop making edits if you do not understand what you are doing. Further disruption will result in a block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:User Name

A tag has been placed on User talk:User Name, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Although the user exists, there is no reason to have this here.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Jab7842 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do use User:Jab2487, but it is completely legitimate since it is the account I use in public computers. User:Jab2487 is my only alternate account, so I'm not User:TM1096. -- Jab7842 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the contributions of User:Jan7842 and User:TM1096, I see much more overlap than can be explained by chance, given the accounts very small number of edits. When combined with the CheckUser evidence Eagles247 mentions below (which I haven't seen since I'm not a CU, but I trust Eagle247's analysis), your statement is not believable. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2012 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: CheckUser confirmed that Jab7842 abusively used TM1096 and Jab2487 in violation of WP:SOCK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Events

Portal:Events, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Events and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Events during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar pages

Hi, I have removed Portal:Current events/July 2000/Calendar, Portal:Current events/August 2000/Calendar, and Portal:Current events/September 2000/Calendar from Category:2000 by day, because this category should only list the day pages, not the calendar pages. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]