User talk:Jamesrand

Welcome!

Hello, Jamesrand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling &bull; talk   06:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Thank you Steven! Jamesrand (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did here. As far as I can see, this edit removed sourced material without good reasons. Your edit appears to be disruptive and has been reverted or removed. --Edcolins (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note on my talk page. You didn't re-remove the same content. Considering this edit and your edit, you'll see that in the meantime reliable sources had been added. Using the same edit summary as User:Steven Walling was rather inappropriate I am afraid. --Edcolins (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Understanding sysop guidelines and abuse
I have semi-protected a page, i.e. Brian Camelio, that was subject to significant disruption while blocking individual users is not a feasible option. If we cannot resolve that together, you can refer what you regard as an admin abuse here: WP:ADMINABUSE. A good start though may be to address this question (on Requests for permissions/Confirmed). Thanks --Edcolins (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Changed my mind, unprotecting
I have changed my mind now. In view of your constructive proposal here (my answer here), I have unprotected the article Brian Camelio. I trust you have understood our neutrality policies now (WP:NPOV) and you can improve the article on your own. If some disruptive IP address edits (or any other disruptive edits) are made again to the article, protection may be required again. --Edcolins (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Journey and Camelio
See my comment on EdColins' talk page. Dave Golland (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GDallimore (Talk) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * GD please read the talk page for that article yourself. You will see that it is and has been in discussion for a while.  Please stop disruptive editing.  Jamesrand (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep or Delete
James. Thanks for your response. The choices are basically "keep" or "delete" with perhaps a modifier of "strong" or "weak". See Articles_for_deletion. "Too soon to keep" really means "Delete". And that's fine. What we are striving for is closure.--Nowa (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will modify for you.  Jamesrand (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts
James. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. I am referring in particular to this edit. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. --Edcolins (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Brian Camelio. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to comment
You may wish to comment on this (on Nowa's talk page), especially on
 * "Otherwise, any objections to moving now the three proposed sections from Talk:Brian Camelio to the three respective articles? I have edited the three sections to make them more neutral as requested by Jamesrand, and now I don't really see anything objectionable. We could also initiate a Request for comment on whether three sections should be inserted in the three articles and whether they meet our core Wikipedia policies. Any thoughts?"

--Edcolins (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)