User talk:Fustin Jields

JumperZ69666420, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JumperZ69666420! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving pages?

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Fan Controlled Football, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep moving that page? Is there something I can help you with? Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was moving the page to create a redirect. JumperZ69666420 (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason to move a page and it can create broken links or break edit histories for attribution purposes if the articles are split out. Please read how to make a redirect for next time (or use Wikipedia:How to make a redirect). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edit to Talk:Andrew Siciliano, please remember that talk pages are for discussion related to improving the corresponding article, not general discussion about its topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SamCordes. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mo Lewis, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SamCordes^talk 05:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Ed Donatell has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are usually constructive, and this one was. I just decided to make the summary a shitpost lol.

Don't.

Please do not write disruptive edit summaries ("shitposts"). Doing so may well be considered as disruptive editing if not vandalism, and may result in a block from editing. Thanks. Java Hurricane 03:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry Dash

You removed my edit, but your right it’s too informal and unsourced lol, based on your username having Jumper in its name, and being on the GD wiki page I assume your a follow GDer! :) WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am lol, my Geometry Dash username is JumperOverrated. JumperZ69666420 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This block is being applied since you continued to add disruptive edit summaries despite multiple warnings to stop. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 27 March 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Could you give examples of such? I sometimes will write my summaries backwards (if I fix punctuation, I will write noitautcnup, which describes my edit), but I can't find anything else done wrong since my last warn. Today, I wrote a summary "AAAAA SPACE BEFORE CITATION", which is informal, I know, but it accurately describes my edit - I removed a space before a citation. If you could provide me an example of a block-worthy summary, then I will end this unblock request, but I don't see any block-worthy summary. Thanks, JumperZ69666420 (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC).

Decline reason:

I'm not going to post the edit summaries that have been removed from public view, but those by themselves would be enough to block you. Backwards edit summaries are unhelpful as well. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2021 (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.

The block has expired, but your edit summary at Silverback (disambiguation) (written six days after your second warning about edit summaries) was disruptive and I deleted it from public view. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 31 March 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here My edit to the "no pitch" page wasn't vandalism; I had a reason to make the edit. On the "no pitch" page talk page, a user said "I believe that the Line "The bird was also ruled dead" should remain in the article. The statement isn't factually incorrect, Is still a neutral statement of fact and is well sourced from reliable sources. It's such a subtle pun that its not detrimental to the rest of the artical. There can still be humor present in encyclopedic writing." I couldn't find anything disallowing humor in Wikipedia:Editing Policy. If this request is declined, then I will accept the ban, but 1 week is a bit much for borderline vandalism like this, in my opinion. If the admin who reviews this request thinks that a 1 week ban is fair, so be it. JumperZ69666420 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No longer asking to be unblocked; "I think that this ban is fine and fair". Yamla (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2021 (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.

I've shortened the block by five days to a total of two days. Looking at the edit history at No pitch, it appears another long-time editor has been engaging in an edit war regarding this specific addition of a joke in mainspace, and JumperZ69666420 was only reinstating it. I am keeping the block at two days, however, for the intentionally deceptive edit summary used after multiple warnings and a block about the proper use of edit summaries. Leaving the unblock request open in case another administrator believes the newly shortened block is still unwarranted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the edit war. I knew that the joke was there and it was removed, but I had no idea about the edit war. I think that this ban is fine and fair, honestly. If another administrator disagrees with this ban still, I don't really care if it is removed or not. JumperZ69666420 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Isaiah Wilson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Frank Gore, you may be blocked from editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]