Jack4576
May 2024
edit{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Aoidh (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Jack4576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This Admin is WP:INVOLVED as me and them have a history. I would not be opposed to this block being imposed by another admin if they think such a thing is necessary.
INDEF is also an excessive sanction. I genuinely believed there was consensus, and I stopped reverting edits after a compromise position was reached. A time-limited or page-limited block would be more appropriate. Jack4576 (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Putting an end date on the block does nothing to guarantee that your edit warring will cease, and blocking from a specific article or page doesn't guarantee that you won't edit war on other articles or pages. I agree that this block is necessary to prevent disruption and that you haven't provided sufficient grounds to remove it yet. As such, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Something interesting.
editJack, I know you are currently blocked and I would have sent you an email, but I didn't see an email link. Anyway, I thought you might find this project interesting: Wikipedia talk:Selective scoping. Happy reading! Huggums537voted! (sign🖋️|📞talk) 21:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Huggums, thanks for reaching out. That’s an interesting thread. If I was unblocked i’d support the proposal. Targeted nominations are a problem on this site. On some rare occasions I think I’ve received a bit of that
- I’ve made an anonymised address you’re welcome to email me on anytime; [email protected]
- Hope you’ve been well. Best Jack4576 (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of La Lune (restaurant) for deletion
editThe article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Lune (restaurant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I once again remind editors of the consensus position; that WP:AUD does not apply to prevent major news publication from supporting notability for subjects located in the city that the major news publication is headquartered.
- Given the numerous reminders to editors regarding this issue, and the clear outcome of group discussions in the past, it is regrettable that some editors continue to claim that major newspapers in Melbourne cannot be used as a source for businesses located in Melbourne. This disregard of consensus ought to be addressed by the community.
- In addition to being contrary to consensus, the position is self-evidently problematic. The position excludes the NYT from being a source for business subjects located in NYC; which would be an absurd result. I invite editors to reflect upon whether their interpretation of some of this site's rules are more damaging than beneficial.
- We are all here to build an encyclopedia, and relying upon spurious, controversial, absurd, and nonsensical interpretations of the WP:AUD notability rule only serves to undermine and erase good-faith and quality contributions by editors across this website. Jack4576 (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)