User talk:Jdm7dv

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Jonathan Moore (engineer), a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jonathan Moore (engineer). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Jonathan Moore (engineer).

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jonathan Moore (engineer). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Jonathan Moore (engineer). AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats by Jdm7dv. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. ~ GB fan 19:53, 27 May 2017 (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).

Jdm7dv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

misunderstanding Jdm7dv (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for legal threats. Your unblock request, which consists of a single word, does not unconditionally withdraw the legal threat or alternatively, does not indicate your legal action has completed. As such, you will not be unblocked. You are welcome to make another unblock, but you must either unconditionally withdraw the threat of legal action or indicate your legal action has been completed. Yamla (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2017 (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.

http://www.jonathanmoore.net/bio.html in not copyright infringement please perform a whois lookup and call. <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdm7dv (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to do the lookup and I doubt anyone else will. Let's assume, for arguments sake that the lookup identifies that the site is owned by Jonathan Moore. While it seems plausible you are that person we don't know that for certain, as we allow broad discretion in choice of usernames. If someone wishes to use copyrighted text in an article the copyright holder has to file a permission statement with OTRS. You haven't done that so therefore we treat it as a copyright violation. Please don't bother asking for the details of how to file such a permission statement is almost certainly not appropriate in the case of a bio if you weren't the subject but given that you are you need to read our policy that highly discourages you from writing an autobiography. We want articles written by independent editors and you most certainly don't qualify. There are ways for the subject of an existing article to provide relevant information on corrections and improvements but directly editing the article is not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jdm7dv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Legal action removed.

Accept reason:

Complied with request S Philbrick (Talk) 00:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I threaten you? Or did you threaten me first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdm7dv (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you as the sole reason for the block was the existence of the legal threat and you have indicated that it has been removed. It appears that your goal is to write an article about yourself. You should not continue to do so. You should read Wikipedia:Autobiography --S Philbrick (Talk) 23:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GB fan, Yamla I don't have a lot of experience with unblock so my apologies if I'm the bull in the China shop here. I recall a recent kerfuffle or an admin get in trouble for unblocking someone without consulting with the blocking admin. Now I find myself unblocking someone without running it first by either the blocking admin or the unblock declination admin. However, it was my view that the block was for a very narrow specific reason, a legal threat, and this has been revoked. I suspect both of you might of liked a few more words including something that suggests that the editor understood the issues, but my feeling is we have an unhappy editor once almost certainly unhappy because they were blocked, and when told what they needed to do to get unblocked, they did it. I'm not in favor of wikilawyering and asking for an abject apology on bended knee. I think the editor will get themselves back into trouble if they attempt to write an autobiography, but I've tried to make it very clear in two or three places that this is not an acceptable course of events. If you think I was a little quick on the trigger to unblock please let me know.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked a little more, but the block was for the narrow reason of the legal threat. The threat has been removed so the unblock is appropriate. ~ GB fan 00:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jdm7dv

A tag has been placed on User:Jdm7dv requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lil Johnny (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have also made a legal threat here. The block is justified also on that basis. If you want to be unblocked, you will have to make an appeal that addresses both concerns. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

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).

Jdm7dv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Having a bad year please unblock me.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2023 (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 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).

Jdm7dv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All I requested was a bio I didn't know you frowned on autobiography's I dont want one anymore because World Book accepted me I'm not a Marxist I believe in a Max Weber Society. I am reporting Wikipedia to the College Board and to the Royal Society of the Arts because all I wanted was a Bio all you have had to have said was no and not block me. and for falsifying Burke's peerage.

Decline reason:

You've worked hard for years to demonstrate very, very clearly, that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. That's fine. We'll leave the block in place. Yamla (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2023 (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.