User talk:Juror1

Welcome!

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

On Chronological Order in Talk Pages

Hey Juror1. I noticed your recent edit to Talk:Moses where you requested more information on archaeology. I just thought I'd let you know, in case you check back on the page, that I didn't delete your comment -- I just moved it to the bottom of the page. On Wikipedia talk pages, the normal practice is to put all sections chronologically, based on when they were first started, with the newest sections at the bottom. When editors come to a page and look for new talk page entries, a lot of them will skip right to the bottom of the page, and so they would have missed your concern. Now they'll be able to see it right away and they'll realize someone has made a new comment on the page. This will give your concern a better chance of being addressed. Otherwise, someone who looks over the talk page could assume that it's an old issue that has probably already been solved. Alephb (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanksJuror1 (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor

Hey Juror1. I noticed your comment above where you expressed some frustration with how editing Wikipedia is like editing HTML code. You might be interested in the Visual Editor function that lets you avoid dealing directly with code: WP:VisualEditor. It works when you're editing an article, but it might not work on talk pages. I use it a lot when doing things like fixing typos. (Also: your concern about how hard it is to edit might have been easier to notice above if you put your reply underneath the whole welcome message, instead of in the middle.) Anyhow, I know it's a bit of a pain to figure out things here some times, but hopefully this'll help. Alephb (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so how do you access it ? typical crap Wiki reply with no usefull infoJuror1 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It would be helpful if you could please moderate your tone. There's no need to be upset or aggressive towards each other. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 02:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm Jith12. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2018 Winter Olympics have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jith12 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2018 Winter Olympics. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Smartyllama (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I posted facts and reference! [User:Juror1|Juror1]] (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you said I lied - you attacked me !!!!Juror1 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tone on Talk Pages and in Contributions

Hi User:Juror1, I'm Alfie. I happened across some of your comments on an article talk page recently and I thought I'd drop by your talk page. It's obvious you're very passionate about a good number of subjects and you have the potential to be a really good editor; However, I've noticed some issues with your general tone and your interactions with other editors which concern me and I wanted to reach out before you get blocked, which none of us want!

Wikipedia's core principles are the Five Pillars - it's worth reading all five (and the policies and guidelines behind them) but I want to draw special attention to The Fourth Pillar. This roughly boils down to "be respectful", and "assume other users are trying to build a good encyclopedia". As much as I also want to assume you're here to build an encyclopedia, statements such as [one], as well as your reply to to Alephb on this talk page, are unnecessarily inflammatory and will lead editors to be less interested in collaborating with you on future articles. Additionally, ending your comments with multiple exclamation marks does feel a lot like you're shouting at us, and... well, would you have a conversation in person with me if I was shouting at you in response to calm, measured statements? I know I certainly woudn't.

I genuinely think you could be a very good content editor: You're passionate about a lot of topics (and seem to be getting better about backing up your statements with sources, which is always nice to see!) and with some care and attention I really think you could contribute some great stuff here. I'd recommend you swing by the Teahouse which is Wikipedia's project to help new or inexperienced editors get to grips with the site - they'll be happy to help you work on some of the stuff you've been trying to contribute recently. I also suggest you have a read of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - I think you'll like this one especially, but make sure you read this too!

Let me know if I can help you with anything by leaving a message on my talk page or mentioning me here - My favourite way is to use the {{reply to}} template like this: {{reply to|Alfiepates}}.

I hope to see you around making constructive edits soon, and I hope I don't have to write another message like this!

-- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 17:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i have no clue what Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. template like this: @Alfiepates:.

means, this is 2018 not 1992 when HTML was done by hand,Juror1 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to a note about your tone with a comment about how you don't like Wiki-markup is . . . an example of missing the point. But the "reply to" template is just something you can use when replying to someone. The documentation for that template is here if you want to learn more Template:Reply to. Alephb (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I geniunely want to help this user, but... well, they're not helping themselves. I'll put it simply: Juror1, if you are here to build an encyclopaedia (and I really hope you are, your contributions seem genuine and earnest for the most part) then we expect you to pull your socks up and put in the effort. We're not here to hold your hand and do the work for you; We'll gladly help users who're enthusiastic and willing to improve, but if you're a chore to work with then we're not going to want to put in the effort: We're volunteers, after all, and there are only so many hours in the day. I know you want to contribute and I think your contributions could be brilliant, but we're gonna have to see some genuine improvement in your willingness to collaborate with others or this just isn't going to work. Let me know if I can help you with anything. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 00:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of GADFLY46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2018 (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).

Juror1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You telling me a NAZI serb blocked me?Juror1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Huon (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2018 (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 fixed your unblock request template. As a general comment: I tried very hard to help you - I don't appreciate having that thrown in my face with personal attacks against my fellow editors, especially potentially racist attacks. This is not how you prove you're here to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i did not request a fix of any template, as I did not request an unblock. Juror1 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so our dorm using same IP no one can post (as if any do) ?Juror1 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]