User talk:Jubresner

Mets retired numbers[edit]

Please look at this:[1]...Now please stop doing what you are doing.--Yankees10 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

RE: St. Louis Cardinals -- The Cardinals have not retired Mr. Hernandez number and your addition of it to the Cardinals Wiki was inappropriate. I see that another editor has already cautioned you for similar error and you paid no heed. Please take a moment to read and fully comprehend Wikipedia guidelines and rules before continued editing. Thank you. Sector001 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox instead. Thank you. MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at New York Rangers, you may be blocked from editing. MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Mz7. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Roy Colsey— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mz7 (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at New York Mets with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jim Mattis, you may be blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United States Secretary of Defense. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 01:15, 4 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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry and I won't do it again.

Decline reason:

given the length of time, some five years, over which you have intermittently vandalized, I find it difficult to accept that now you are sorry; would you have been so, had you not been blocked? Please give a full and convincing answer to the question posed below this edit. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:03, 5 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.

unblock discussion[edit]

You've a long history of unconstructive editing. Given your history, I'm inclined to say you should not edit for six months and then request the WP:standard offer. That shouldn't be hard given the gaps in your edit history. How long does it take for a zebra to change his stripes? More than a year, I guess. Now you're contrite? Please be more specific. What edits will you not make? Give examples of edits you will make. Be as clear and specific as possible. Take a look at the Wikipedia:Community portal. Plenty of work to be done if you wish to make an act or twenty of contrition. Thanks, --Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:03, 4 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).

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

Request reason:

how long is my ban going to last. It shouldn't be forever. I deserve some reasonable punishment. Forever is petty. Jubresner (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You clearly do not understand the reasoning behind this block, and this request immediately after the above comment to you shows that you should not be unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 6 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.

You are not being punished. Blocks are not punitive but preventative. Also, it is not forever. Clearly, I wrote above you should try again in six months. The clock resets each time you edit, though. And "petty "mischaracterizations as above only deepen your whole hole.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are right I am sorry for doubting your geniusy.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been gone for over six months, per your reuquest above. I have found Wikipedia to be a very valuable tool and I am committed to making constructive edits in the future. I will only make edits that can be verified by an outside source. I hope you will grant me this second chance. Jubresner (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2019 (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 will give you a chance to demonstrate that you are able to make constructive contributions. Please follow the instructions above. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little bit confusing. Can't I just make a constructive edit to an article to prove to you that I can be a good contributor? Jubresner (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand the instructions above. Jubresner (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a new unblock request to attempt to convince another administrator that you should be unblocked without giving an example of a constructive contribution you would make, that is your option. All the above instructions is really saying is that you should review Wikipedia guidelines and make an example constructive edit here; the details are just wikicode to leave out of your example edit. 331dot (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Mesoraco[edit]

On May 8, 2018, the Reds traded Mesoraco with cash considerations to the New York Mets for Matt Harvey.^[1] For the 2018 season, Mesoraco batted .221 with 11 Home runs and 33 RBI. "Devin Mesoraco". Baseball Reference. 27 March 2019. Retrieved 27 March 2019. He became a free agent after the season. He re-signed on February 7, 2019 to a minor league deal.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have followed the instructions above and I have proven that I can make a constructive edit to an article. Given the length of time and the fact that I have already apologized, I would like to be unblocked now. Jubresner (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here, you copied content. Good so far. Here, you made your edit. That edit was entirely uncited, despite warnings that your edit should be cited with a reliable source. Your edit consisted of approximately 14 words, despite clear instructions indicating you had to perform significant improvements. There are no grounds for an unblock here. Yamla (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2019 (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 have a source, I just don't know how to cite it. Here is the link https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mesorde01.shtml

That doesn't address the fact that your edit was trivial rather than significant. Nor does it address the fact that your citation gives different numbers for batting average (.221 rather than .231). I so very, very strongly advise the next reviewing admin decline your unblock request. You have very clearly demonstrated you would continue to actively harm Wikipedia if unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user modified the information they added to correct the mistake, in this edit. That's good, but doesn't change the fact that the edit was trivial, was uncited, and was initially incorrect. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing and able to demonstrate to you that I can make larger and more constructive edits. I just haven't been able to yet because I don't know how to add references. Can you please tell me how to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubresner (talk • contribs)

If you don't know how, you need to take down your unblock request. WP:CITE and WP:RS are our official answers to this question. --Yamla (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do I take it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubresner (talk • contribs)

Edit your page. Delete the unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. For the record I have been trying to act in good faith ever since I made the first request to be unblocked after the six months. Instead of trying to help me you it seems that you guys are using an antagonistic approach and I don't think its necessary. I am trying to earn my way back and I don't why you guys do not want me to succeed. Jubresner (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Jubresner[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Jubresner, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Reds land Harvey, send Mesoraco, cash to Mets". ESPN.com. Retrieved May 8, 2018.

[1] "Reds land Harvey, send Mesoraco, cash to Mets". ESPN.com. Retrieved May 8, 2018.

[1]