User talk:Jay74b

Yorkville[edit]

I understand you may be new to Wikipedia, but we all have to follow the rules, and you've broken several of them in your recent Yorkville, Manhattan edit. You are edit-warring and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Protocol is to go to the talk page, where I have already begun a discussion. Please do so, and please read the bluelinked polcies and guidelines there in order to avoid intercession by an admin. They don't like edit-warring.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem not to want to discuss you WP:POV edit that violates several Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I'm afraid I'm going to ask for admin intervention if you revert one more. Wikipedia is not a place for WP:SOAPBOXing of grievances. It is an encyclopedia and we ask that you please respect that fact. Your attempt at adding an op-ed article to Wikipedia (below) has been removed. Please discontinue your disruptive edits or an admin may chose to block or ban you from further editing. The proper protocol is to discuss on the article's talk page.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're continuing your disruptive, unhelpful, uncited, WP:SOAPBOXing edits, and since you are refusing to discuss your disruptive behavior, I am contacting an admin. It is unconscionable for you to to attempt to use Wikipedia to promote your personal agenda. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

You have reached three reverts at Yorkville, Manhattan and you are similarly editing-warring at Upper East Side. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You can reply at WP:AN3#User:Jay74b reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: ) if you wish. A user has complained that you have been edit warring across three articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Solid Waste Facility Upper East Side[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Solid Waste Facility Upper East Side. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Upper East Side. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Upper East Side – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - Mr X 01:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on solid waste issues on the Upper East Side[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Jay74b reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 21 March 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).

Jay74b (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Posted relevant information about Yorkville. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay74b (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 March (UTC)

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. Kuru (talk) 23:55, 21 March 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.