User talk:Jaymesmcc

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 20:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Test17.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Test17.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with the page Image:James.jpg on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Yamla 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Warren baker

The article Warren baker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Warren Baker

A tag has been placed on Warren Baker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hekerui (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Henrymunta1". The reason given for Henrymunta1's block is: "Copyright violations".

Blocking administrator: Swarm (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Obvious sockpuppet, now blocked directly for WP:EVASION. Yamla (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not know anyone called Henrymunta1. Please confirm why I am blocked. I do work in an office. I'm guessing our computers may have the same IP address, although I do not know who this person would be. Thank you.

Decline reason:

If User:Henrymunta1 had not edited in exactly the same manner as you, on the exact same topic, from the same place, this might be plausible. As it is, I call bullshit.Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:29, 10 April 2018 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21152 was submitted on Apr 10, 2018 03:51:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your tone or the use of a swear word to make your point. Totally unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymesmcc (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been sworn at by an editor for no good reason other than asking for a block to be removed. I find this unacceptable.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry that you're frustrated and feeling upset over language that was used here, but that has nothing to do with your block reason and it won't be accepted as a reason for being unblocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:09, 10 April 2018 (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.

Jaymesmcc (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really now? And who did that to you? Where at? ... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peachy 2.0

I was responded to with the phrase “As it is, I call bullshit” by your Peachy 2.0. This is totally unacceptable, not only because of the language used but also because of the untrue accusations made about me. I’m very shocked and unhappy. Jaymesmcc (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're frustrated and feeling upset, but that has nothing to do with your block and it won't be accepted as a reason for being unblocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC). That's fine, although I do feel as if the language of editors should be monitored as I found Peachy's response offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymesmcc (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who this Peachy character is, but it was me who called bullshit on your claim that this account was not related to Henrymunta1 - for the simple reason that your claim is obviously bullshit. Since you've carried on denying this very obvious fact below, I'm revoking talkpage access - if you decide at some point to stop lying and wasting our time, you can file an email appeal via UTRS. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peachy 2.0 is something to do with the UTRS bot. —DoRD (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to know what my options are to have this block lifted. I have not abused this privilege and so far have been sworn at by an editor who closed my last request. I find this unacceptable. What can I do to rectify this? Thank you.

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (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.

To be unblocked, you need to explain the overlap in editing and the overlap in IP addresses. It's simply not plausible that you are unrelated to Henrymunta1 (talk · contribs). You should also come clean about your relationship to James McCourt, especially given your username and this edit. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I cannot "come clean" about something I know nothing about. How would you like me to explain the overlap in editing and IP addresses? I work for a large organization and I am assuming we are all on the same IP address. That's all I can offer to you as an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymesmcc (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21162 was submitted on Apr 10, 2018 16:06:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]