User talk:Djg2006

Welcome!

Hello, Djg2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ton e 16:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Logo_du_RÉSO.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo_du_RÉSO.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Gwernol 23:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your edits are reverted, use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes and reach a consensus with other editors before changing the article. No-one can revert more than 3 times in 24 hours: please read the WP:3RR policy. Thanks, Gwernol 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

The reasons are simple - they were POV and did not belong in the intro. They were a blatant attempt to insert something that goes against five years of discussion and consensus. And finally, if you do not give the courtesy of using an edit summary, then I see no reason why I should return said courtesy. Also, don't call it vandalism. We admins hate that. --Golbez 03:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that request for edit summaries... its just polite. Also it would be nice if you consolidated your edits a little. Changing one word and then immediately editing again a single word can be a little much. Thanks Rtrev 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

With regards to your comments on September 11, 2001 attacks: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. This includes referring to people's edits as vandalism when they are not. Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenants of the World Trade Center

Thank you for contributing. However, please insert your links on the proper section "See also", which is always on the bottom of the page, not on the beginning.--Hús ö nd 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Djg2006: 15% for major edits and 20% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

An article that you had shown interest in the past has been tagged to be peer reviewed. Your input will be appreciatedRaveenS

Undo

Please provide an edit summary when you use undo in cases that aren't reverting vandalism. If it can't be sourced, it can't be there. Please explain your undo. --Onorem♠Dil 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't make it up. I heard him say it myself on the radio yesterday. The policy is still verifiability, not truth. --Onorem♠Dil 20:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that would qualify as a reliable source by Wiki standards...and I really don't think it's all that important to the article. --Onorem♠Dil 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

A proposal has been made to merge Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge into I-35W Mississippi River bridge. The matter is being discussed at Talk:Replacement I-35W Mississippi River bridge. Please feel free to comment. Thank you. Kablammo 18:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please read the blue lined link above.--MONGO 17:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Rklawton 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got some ideas on the article you would like to see promoted, you're welcome to take them up on the article's talk page. Rklawton 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You are a valued contributor, and it is clear your edits were intended constructively. Rklawton 19:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of List of tenants in Six World Trade Center

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of tenants in Six World Trade Center, by Closedmouth (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of tenants in Six World Trade Center is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of tenants in Six World Trade Center, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: 3rr Regarding reversions to Collapse of the World Trade Center

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning, but aviod making any reverts within 24 hours of this warning in order to avoid any confusion. Wizardman 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Djg2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am appealing my suspension on the grounds that my last edit was not a revert. An email with this message has previously been sent to the admin who blocked me. Also, please note that the suspension imposed is in excess of 24 hours (31), even though this is the first time I am being blocked.

Decline reason:

I concur with Wizardman's comments immediately below. — Yamla 18:18, 20 August 2007 (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.

It wasn't a revert of what you had previously put in, true. However, by continuing to disrupt the page when you could have asked about your edit on the talk page, you violated the spirit of 3rr. I'll let another admin review it though. Plus, I went in excess since you had a previous 3rr warning shortly before it. I'll reduce the duration if that's the problem, but again, another admin should double-check my decision. Wizardman 18:15, 20 August 2007 (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).

Djg2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your response. The rule is three reverts, no? Thus, I feel that your point on disruption is moot. At a certain point, I get tired of being pushed around. Also, if you read carefully, the last warning was due to an inattention on my part, and so should not count. Please also note that there is no provision for a ban in excess of 24 hours. Please unblock my account, or indicate how I can terminate my account - I am fed up.

Decline reason:

I concur with the admins above and below. While you may not have violated the letter of 3RR, you violated the spirit. Please wait out your block and do not continue to use the {{unblock}} template or a page protection will be in order. In addition, there is no way to terminate an account. — ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:40, 20 August 2007 (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.

Djg2006 18:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four times in less than two hours you attempted to add the phrase "not unlike a controlled demolition" to the article [1][2][3][4]. The statement itself is uncited and unverified. It inserts a POV that is unsupported. You made an erroneous claim that I was not permitted to revert your inclusion of that statement without discussion (there's no policy supporting this). In fact, Jimbo has taken a very harsh stance with regards to uncited claims. I asked you in edit summaries to discuss your change on the talk page [5]. You declined, and instead conducted yet another revert. Then, when another editor removed your uncited claim, you reverted him as well accusing him of working for a federal agency [6]. Subsequent to this when your addition was removed by a third individual, you attempted to put a {{POV}} tag on the article. Prior to today's incidents, you had been warned about WP:3RR violations before (see [7]). You knew the policy and chose to engage in edit warring anyways in an attempt to push your uncited POV into the article. The block is appropriate, and given the prior warnings the length of the block is appropriate as well. Rather than continuing to contest this block, I recommend you spend the next 30 hours or so considering your actions in this dispute and refrain from contentious edit warring in the future. Thank you, --Durin 18:36, 20 August 2007 (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).

Djg2006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your contribution - I still feel that the block is unjustified, as well as being in excess of the stated policy. My points of defense seem to have been ignored. I would like to escalate the appeal, but cannot find any other way than by reiterating the tag. Please advise on my options for appeal, and for terminating my account.

Decline reason:

Your abuse to {{unblock}} has lead me to protect this page. At this point your options are to email unblock-en-l, as stated in the 'you have been blocked' message, or wait out the block. You cannot delete your account, however if you wish to stop editing, you will be left alone. — --ST47Talk·Desk 18:47, 20 August 2007 (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.

Block reduced

As a result of your appeal to the Unblock Mailing List, Unblock-en-l, I have reduced your block from 31 hours to 11 hours, but otherwise have upheld Wizardman's action. In future, please be sure to discuss changes with users if you are reverted, rather than attempting to forcibly include your edits.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the block being reduced is fine, just keep in mind though, blocks are certainly not the end of the world. They're meant to calm one down if they're starting to get frustrated, which you certainly were doing. If you disagree on something with someone, just discuss it on the talk page of wherever you're having problems. If you're seen as in the wrong and are getting frustrate, just step back on take a deep breath. The best way to make your voice heard is always back-and-forth discussion, not throwing in a point without talking about it. You'll feel a lot better if you go that route. Wizardman 21:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 24.203.41.5 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that although the block was reduced to 11 hours, I was still effectively blocked for close to 24 hours. Can anyone tell me why?Djg2006 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You triggered the autoblocker. -- Netsnipe ► 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Codona

A tag has been placed on Codona requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please restore the Codona page content

...to a user subpage of mineDjg2006 (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see User:Djg2006/Codona. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. KelleyCook (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight saving time

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Daylight saving time, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. As it happened, the information inserted about Canada was incorrect (for the correct info, please see the Canadian Institute for National Measurement Standards), and this underscores the need for checking with reliable sources when inserting information. Eubulides (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]