User talk:Jay Turner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Further information: User talk:jaytur1/a

Blocked

I've blocked you for 31 hours for this needless page move vandalism. It was uncalled for and you shouldn't move deletion pages because you're upset that one of the pages you created has been nominated for deletion. When you return from your block, think about editing constructively and consider forms of discussion rather than needless disruption. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He had no right to put that up for deletion, ITS USERSPACE! --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he does, he can nominate any page for deletion at
user page guidlines. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:15, 12 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

When I get angry or upset, my views come pouring out, and unfortuantly I was editing wikipedia at that moment! --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is no excuse. How are we to know you won't do something like this again? — Yamla (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (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 don't do stuff like that. Check my contribs. I was angry (I rarely get angry). --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I'd like to be Admin coached. Can somebody help me? --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

If I can be matched with an admin for admin coaching can thios be lifted early? (Hey admin who is reading this, Can you coach me, please?) --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 18:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Admin coaching would be a good idea. However, there is no reason to rush the unblock. The block expires at 00:06 on February 14 (UTC). When the block expires, apply for admin coaching. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:29, 12 February 2008 (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.

Can you coach me? --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

Removal of material from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 11

Please note that this edit is unacceptable behaviour. If you have constructive comments to make about this deletion debate, you are welcome to air them there. But simply deleting the debate is both pointless and disruptive, and thanks to the wonders of the Wiki system, it simply will not work. In this environment, you cannot unilaterally remove discussion that you don't like, and your response to this combined deletion debate is both childish and disruptive, and will drive editors to grant you less freedom with your userspace than they would be otherwise inclined to give. Before seeing the results of your responses to a simple MfD, I was certain that you would be permitted to continue the WikiPoints system in your userspace... now I would not be surprised if it is deleted simply due to your attitude to its discussion. Happy‑melon 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page in discussion was moved to userspace. --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then make an appropriate note of that fact in the discussion, and it will be closed. Completed discussions are archived, not unilaterally removed. Happy‑melon 20:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Contributions

You have just under 1700 edits but your contribution to article space has been, to say the least, muted. Your namespace edits are as follows:


Edit count by namespace:

  • Article: 11.96% (181) | Article talk: 3.43% (52
  • User: 49.67% (752) | User talk: 26.09% (395)
  • Wikipedia: 6.27% (95) | Wikipedia talk: 0.2% (3)
  • Image: 0.53% (8) | Image talk: 0% (0)
  • Template: 1.12% (17) | Template talk: 0.4% (6)

Virtually everything you have done has been edits to your userpage and your wikiproject. Very little has directly contributed to the project. Wikipedia is not a social networking site and if you are going to be disruptive or act in a way that users consider disruptive its as well to be actively making contributions to the article namespace. Perhaps something for you to think about?

Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Objections to WikiPoints

While I find the idea not necessarily bad, I do find the possibility of it being fairly applied across the board, rather than selectively applied by interested individuals, and thus basically somewhat less than fair, almost unavoidable. This is exacerbated by the poor definition of several of the terms. What is a "Major" edit, for instance? Would adding references count, or copyediting, or adding new content, all of the above, none of the above, or something else? Also, as I'm sure you can understand, with over 2 million articles right now as we speak, the amount of work required for editors to try to fairly apply these standards would be prohibitive.

No bot would be able to monitor all the articles, particularly considering that much content is later deleted as unsourced. And there is no way to differentiate between "quality" additions and "vandalism" or other additions which have to be reverted later. Would someone adding a few thousand bytes of unsusbstantiated speculation about Britney Spears which should be deleted immediately possibly be eligible for 10 points? Probably, considering that it often takes a while to check on such things. Then we're rewarding vandals, something I think we would all try to avoid. I'm not saying that the idea is necessarily a bad one, but I can't see how having a system such as this one, with such poorly defined language, isn't more likely to cause problems by the differences in awarding "points" which will inevitably arise than it will benefit the encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Jay Turner

Another editor has added the {{

prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Blocked indefinitely

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been

sockpuppet
of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.
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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet, I use AOL so it must have been an error, alos user:jaytur1 is mine but to stop people pretending to be me! Fan-faddy-dotious! --Jay Turner (talk · contribs) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, but according to

this, this account is a sockpuppet. — nat.utoronto 16:28, 13 February 2008 (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.

Note also that the IP addresses you have been using belong to BT Broadband and due to the nature of that ISP, a confirmed checkuser across multiple IP addresses is absolutely damning evidence. I'll note, too, that you have been caught with at least one other sockpuppet account,
talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

ViStart

Another editor has added the {{

prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

List of mayors of Margate

Another editor has added the {{

prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Image copyright problem with Image:[email protected]

Thanks for uploading

Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation
linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aiwa.jpg)

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Mélusine.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale
.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

Chillum 03:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]