User talk:David Lloyd-Jones

I'm trying to make an entry on a different talk page, and failing.

So let this be a reminder to myself, to learn how this bloody machine works.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you got it. If you have a question, try using the {{Help me}} template, like this:

==How does X work?== {{Help me}} Your question. ~~~~ 

Or you can post a question at Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living people applies to talk pages. The colorful phrase in this edit, referencing baked goods, skates right up to the line, if not past it. Please consider deleting it. David in DC (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous "Ronz," It seems pretty obvious to me that what you dismiss as "general discussion of the topic" is often a useful contribution, a necessary prior step, toward your "improving the article."

Why is this not clear to you?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of suggestions: Include potential sources in your comments so others can see it is something other than your own opinion. Clearly indicate what content you are suggesting be changed so others can see how your comments relate to improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR. I don't believe I can help you much at this point. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous "Ronz," The reason I sign my opinions is so that people can see that I take responsibility for my opinions.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the book was deleted in Jan 2015 after WP:Articles for deletion/The Structure of the Physical Universe. I have de-linked the reference from the author's article. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You left a note on my talk page asking for advice. I responded https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_v1.0#Mark.2C_Help_please. . --Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This is for future reference, so there's no doubt of awareness, as you have a history (e.g. [1][2]) of making false and belligerent statements about other editors, in general and specific, based on a lack of good faith. --Cold Season (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that it's usually not a good idea to edit another editor's comment like you did on Talk:Varieties of Chinese, even to fix a typo. Talk pages don't need to be brought up to standard, and fixing a typo from 4 years ago draws attention to a stale discussion and clutters the page history and watch pages. You may want to look at the talk page guideline. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Lloyd-Jones. Thanks for contacting me. Looking over all the comments here, I hope you don't mind if I try to add to what's already been written: Wikipedia is not a battleground: Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors are encouraged to focus on content and refrain from commenting on others.

It may be best if you used edit requests to give you structure when starting discussions in article talk pages, especially while you're still learning how to work with Wikipedia's many behavioral and content policies. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Hawthorne effect, you may be blocked from editing.

You're simply making the same remarks as you did at Talk:Dunning-Kruger. I think it's pretty clear now that you're not using article talk pages for improving articles in any way, but instead for expressing your personal opinions. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Lloyd-Jones. Thanks for responding, but I don't see how your comments addressed any of my concerns, while at the same time you appear to be repeating behavior that editors have identified as problematic. Perhaps WP:DR would be of help to you. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ultracrepidarianism. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --pmj (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think on consideration you'll agree that my comment was directed to the content of the post, not the person.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment, later deleted, called out an editor by name and insulted him repeatedly. The improved version you have re-uploaded is indeed directed at the content of the post, which is certainly an improvement.

P.S. I have moved your comment here, which you accidentally left on my user page. Please use users' talk pages for that kind of thing. --pmj (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pmj, As I suggested, your posts to me are incorrect. You apparently did not take my suggestion that you re-read my post. It was carefully drafted as a correction or evaluation of a message, not an attack on a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to do on the Talk:History of Alexandria page, but can I suggest (make that strongly encourage) that you preview your edits before saving them? Or otherwise seek help if you're having difficulty? Thanks - wolf 13:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I said everything I can, both to the person who wrote that pitiful entry on Alexandria and to whatever roving overseers might be around.

They have confused a modern small town with the historically important Alexandria. The result is a totally inappropriate page. It should be removed from Wikipedia because it's a waste of people's time -- and if possible somebody should write a page on the culturally and historically important city.

Cheers,

-dlj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you posted to my page it seems perfectly natural for me to reply on yours, so I'm a bit puzzled by your little box (which I saw afterwards). Anyway, here it is posted afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment regarding the article's content or your changes to it. I'm just referring to the multiple edits it took for your to post your comment here.

Additionally, it's common practice to keep talk page discussions to a single page, (and I have requested as such on my page, not sure how you missed that). Lastly, please don't forget to sign your talk page posts. Thank you - wolf 14:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The machine apparently considers you "wolf" a signature but not my "-dlj." I guess we'll have to wait a bit longer for that machine intelligence thingie.

I didn't change the page's content because I don't think I'm competent to. I came there looking for information which wasn't there, remember? I simply posted my opinion that it desperately needs to be rewritten.

Cheers.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about things here. Again, I have no comment regarding the content of this article. I was commenting on the fact that it took you multiple edits to post a single comment, here on the article's talk page. That is why I suggested you WP:PREVIEW your edits before saving them. It cuts down on errors and typos, and also reduces the number of entries in the page's history as well as the watchlists of editors monitoring the page. (it also cuts down on discussions like this)

As for signatures, my has been customized, you can do the same with yours via the "preferences" link up above. That said, how our signatures appear is a different matter them actually adding them to your posts. That needs to be done every time. Again, take a look at WP:SIGNATURES. - wolf 15:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - wolf 14:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia as a discussion forum in persistent incivility after years of warnings.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you currently still have access to this talk page here, you may be tempted to use it as a forum, lacking access to other pages you can do so at. To prevent this from happening, I should probably state the following in advance: The remaining access to your user talk page is meant to allow an unblock request to be placed (see the instructions above) if you think there are good reasons for being unblocked. These should focus on your behavior, as the block is about your behavior. It isn't about others' behavior, and it isn't about the content of the articles, or the topics you had been discussing. The two points the block addresses, and the two points you'd need to credibly address in an unblock request, are a) using Wikipedia as a forum contrary to WP:NOTFORUM, and b) being incivil after years of warnings contrary to WP:Civility. As this is a long-term problem that persisted after warnings, I personally don't expect it to suddenly be resolved within weeks. I personally am afraid that the "standard offer" is all we can provide; the six months recommended there may be reasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent you from continuing the behavior via e-mail, I have now extended the block to include the on-wiki e-mail function. If you want to appeal your block, you can do so here as described above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2022 (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).

David Lloyd-Jones (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am repeatedly accused of having made personal insults; I believe that any objective person looking my posts under attack by people using pseudonyms are in fact very carefully not personal. In every case they are doubts about, or corrections of, actual written material. I may be seen as "attacking" positions or statements. I have never attacked any person. Not guilty as charged. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with ToBeFree above, and I also think the standard offer is your only path forward. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2022 (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.

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]