User talk:Jamesrand

Welcome!

Hello, Jamesrand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling • talk 06:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steven! Jamesrand (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did here [1]. As far as I can see, this edit removed sourced material without good reasons. Your edit appears to be disruptive and has been reverted or removed. --Edcolins (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page. You didn't re-remove the same content. Considering this edit and your edit, you'll see that in the meantime reliable sources had been added. Using the same edit summary as User:Steven Walling was rather inappropriate I am afraid. --Edcolins (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding sysop guidelines and abuse

I have semi-protected a page, i.e. Brian Camelio, that was subject to significant disruption while blocking individual users is not a feasible option. If we cannot resolve that together, you can refer what you regard as an admin abuse here: WP:ADMINABUSE. A good start though may be to address this question (on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed). Thanks --Edcolins (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, unprotecting

I have changed my mind now. In view of your constructive proposal here (my answer here), I have unprotected the article Brian Camelio. I trust you have understood our neutrality policies now (WP:NPOV) and you can improve the article on your own. If some disruptive IP address edits (or any other disruptive edits) are made again to the article, protection may be required again. --Edcolins (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journey and Camelio

See my comment on EdColins' talk page. Dave Golland (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the changes; 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 without further notice. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GD please read the talk page for that article yourself. You will see that it is and has been in discussion for a while. Please stop disruptive editing. Jamesrand (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete

James. Thanks for your response. The choices are basically "keep" or "delete" with perhaps a modifier of "strong" or "weak". See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. "Too soon to keep" really means "Delete". And that's fine. What we are striving for is closure.--Nowa (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will modify for you. Jamesrand (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple accounts

James. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. I am referring in particular to this edit. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. --Edcolins (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Brian Camelio. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:48, 31 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please see the history and the talk page for Brian Camelio. I have not broken any rules here and the is unfounded. Every edit I have made has been valid and explained in detail on the talk page. The last edit I made after EdColins gave me a warning was not an undo but a change with a detailed explanation. I did not violate the 3 undo rule. I am guessing the block was made so that EdColins and Nowa can substantially change the page without my input.

Decline reason:

You need to better familiarize yourself with WP:Edit warring. Talk page discussion takes place before continuing to edit the article, not during. Accusing administrators of malfeasance without substantiation is not going to serve you well in future reviews. Tiderolls 22:18, 31 March 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.

You may wish to comment

You may wish to comment on this (on Nowa's talk page), especially on

"Otherwise, any objections to moving now the three proposed sections from Talk:Brian Camelio to the three respective articles? I have edited the three sections to make them more neutral as requested by Jamesrand, and now I don't really see anything objectionable. We could also initiate a Wikipedia:Request for comment on whether three sections should be inserted in the three articles and whether they meet our core Wikipedia policies. Any thoughts?"

--Edcolins (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]