User talk:Jonah112

Adelaide[edit]

It's not JUST a flower bed, it's King William Street, and it actually looks nice for once. Why can't it stay if adequate spacing is sorted, as Urban Layout from 1888 belongs in History

It's not JUST a flower bed - I didn't say it was!
it's King William Street - Errrrr, no. It's a small part of some of the bitumen that makes up the road surface, with a few cars on it. I can take a picture of any road anywhere that is mainly bitumen with a few cars on it, and it won't look significantly different from that picture. Its only redeeming feature is a bit of a flower bed, and that bit of flower bed is actually in Victoria Square, not in King Wm St. The picture doesn't show anything that is particular to King Wm St. Or to Adelaide, either.
and it actually looks nice for once. - What is the "it" that looks nice? And why "for once"?
Yes the flowers are pretty. But the expanse of bitumen is not pretty, and that does not "look nice".
Why can't it stay if adequate spacing is sorted, - Because, if there is adequate spacing, there are many much nicer pictures of Adelaide that could go there that would better illustrate the "Urban Layout".
Incidently, how does that picture illustrate the urban layout of Adelaide?
as Urban Layout from 1888 belongs in History - Pardon? The section is titled "Urban Layout". That's why a picture titled Urban Layout "belongs" in the section titled Urban Layout.
Again, if you want to put something extra in the "History" section, there are many much nicer pictures of Adelaide that could go there.

I hope the above addresses your comments/statements/questions. If not, please feel free to ask me to clarify. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I find that the image is very pretty and have had a few comments from asking people to look at the Adelaide Wiki page, that photo frequently came up as the favourite. Bitumen is bitumen, every road has it, and to the average viewer it just looks like a road. I really hope it can stay, as it adds colour to the articles illustrations and makes our public spaces look nice and well kept. Jonah112 (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy.

First I must apologise for rudely failing to welcome you to wikipedia. Mea culpa. Welcome!

As you no doubt already know, anyone can edit wikipedia. The above posting by me is simply my opinion. You, and everyone else, also have opinions, as is evidenced by your statement: "that photo frequently came up as the favourite". Now that the layout issues have been resolved, I have no intention or desire to make further changes. But as you already know, my personal opinion is that there are better and more relevant photos that could fill that space.

Note, however, there may be other editors (over whom I have no control) who dislike the photo even more than I do, and they be motivated to do something. In that case, you will also have to convince them.

By-the-way: I continue to think that the mention in the original caption about the width of King Wm St is a relevant comment, and suggest that you may want to re-include that sentence. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Pdfpdf (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you wish to use a less public method of communication than talk pages, feel free to email me by: 1) click on this: Special:Emailuser; 2) enter pdfpdf into the box; and 3) click on "Submit". Pdfpdf (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah112, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Jonah112! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashton 29 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Bidgee (talk) 11:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2013 (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).

Jonah112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocked my Bidgee constantly because he suspects I am a sock puppet of a user "Ashton29". None of my edits were EVER vandalism, rather he blocked me for uploading an image with an unclear copyright status a few times, simply because I was unaware of the copyright rules on Wikipedia. I have been well aware of them now and I only ever upload Creative Commons ShareAlike images to avoid copyright complications. I revert vandalism, especially on Australia-related articles, which is my main editing interest, and I do not believe my behaviour on Wikipedia is disruptive or destructive. I usually aim to make articles better.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock. T. Canens (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2013 (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.