User talk:JHD0919

Hi, JHD0919. You've added the template {{NoACEMM}} to Nableezy's and Bbb23's talkpages, to stop them from receiving mass messages in the future, on the argument that they "won't be needing these kinds of messages anymore". Well, probably they won't, but it's not for you to say. I understand that you meant well, but Nableezy edited a mere 18 hours ago; he might edit again. And Bbb23 has a note on his page stating that he intends to remove any messages he doesn't like, which, AFAICS, implies he's still watching his page. Please let all users handle their own pages, unless they should ask you to add a template or something. Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC).

Considering his farewell message, as well as its contents, there's no way Nableezy's ever editing again. And I don't believe Bbb will be watching his talkpage forever. It's for those reasons I added the template to both their pages. Oh, and the "Not your business" section header comes off as rude to me. JHD0919 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Please, not your business. Thank you." Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

as does your clerking, which is also disruptive. Consider this a final warning, or you will be blocked. Count me among those who nearly already did so. Star Mississippi 23:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not gonna put templates on user talkpages and remove users from newsletters without permission anymore. I've gotten the hint now. JHD0919 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Stop. Now. If you continue to add that template I will block you. My finger hovered over the button before I typed this message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Where were you guys when I added that same template to Ergo Sum's page and removed him and Carlossuarez46 from Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe? Why did you guys not tell me not to do such things then? JHD0919 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  I see those edits have been reverted. If one feels that me removing Ergo from the Newsletter list (which I honestly forgot I did) was also wrong, feel free to revert that too. JHD0919 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Bishonen warned you and you did it again. Then you did it with Nableezy. Please take a hint. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see my question above. JHD0919 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see warnings from three admins. Stop it. I don't care what you did before and got away with it. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got the hint. I'm not gonna slap that template on any more talk pages without permission. I just wish you guys didn't get onto my case about this in an WP:UNCIVIL manner. JHD0919 (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"Slapping templates" in this manner is usually perceived as a form of gravedancing, which is a far more egregious offense than a direct admonition. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Had I known, I never would have put those templates there. I've always hated gravedancing. JHD0919 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

What were you trying to achieve? How does it matter to you if someone else receives a message even if they aren't currently active? ~2026-61025-9 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your many PRODs of small places in the US, thanks for your industry, but how much WP:BEFORE are you doing on each one, if any? Also, please don't post so many at once, as it places an unfair time pressure on other editors carrying out their BEFORE checks. Ingratis (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You were cautioned about this by User:Ingratis, then you PRODed Mulberry, Texas, per WP:NPLACE. WP:NPLACE says:

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable.

One of the sources listed at Mulberry, Texas, states: "Eighty-nine persons resided there in the mid-1930s". Your edits will soon become disruptive is you don't read and apply WP:BEFORE. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna continue going through every county in the US and PRODing unincorporated community and ghost town articles that fail WP:NPLACE, WP:BEFORE be damned. In fact, I think BEFORE does not apply to articles that are so devoid of substance that they aren't worth saving. If you want to stop me from doing this, blocking me is the only way to do so. JHD0919 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The rationale for removing ths PROD at Mulberry, Texas is false as this unincorporated community does not fit the definition of a "legally-recognised" place. How much time was spent creating these useless permastubs? Yet apparently more time should be devoted by others trying to clear up this mess? Recent deletions of these articles have demonstrated dozens of articles which have existed for years on places that simply do not exist. The Mulberry, Texas article is literally one sentence and has been for just short of two decades. JHD0919 is doing a good job trying to clear the massive backlog of unsourced articles on non-notable so-called "communities". AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

For goodness' sake don't encourage an editor so off-nessage that they can write, apparently in all seriousness, "WP:BEFORE be damned." Without some sort of BEFORE it's not possible to be certain that the topics of these stubs are not notable. Lack of sources =/= lack of notability. Ingratis (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with Aus on this, hence why I've just taken it to AfD. JHD0919 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of seven days for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Recently, you have:

• Filed an ANI calling an admin's actions [u]tter nonsense and utterly pathetic because... they followed WP:PREEMPTIVE. You were warned.
• Engaged in WP:GRAVEDANCING behavior by removing various editors from WP:ADMINNEWS or adding {{NoACEMM}} to their talk pages. You were extensively warned above, with multiple admins saying they strongly considered blocking you for that.
• Now, you are WP:PRODing articles even though multiple editors have objected. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion § Objecting says that If anyone removes a proposed deletion tag from a page or otherwise indicates an objection, the proposed deletion is canceled. This is the case when the objection is from the article's creator or even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith (emphasis modified).

You said that blocking [you] is the only way to get you to stop violating WP:PROD. More broadly, I am concerned with this repeated pattern of making a mess, doubling down, and only re-calibrating once multiple community members take time out of their day to explain basic standards of editing to you. To deter further disruptive behavior, I have blocked you for a week. The guide to appealing blocks contains helpful advice for appealing. If anything is unclear, please feel free to reply to this message. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

If I'm being blocked for disruptive PRODing, then @AusLondonder should probably be blocked for the same reason, if not given a warning at least. They're the one who inspired me to PROD all those articles, because I saw them PRODing all those West Virginia unincorporated community articles and thought a massive cleanup effort would be necessary. JHD0919 (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

AusLondonder (as far as I am aware) does not have the disruptive history that you have. AusLondonder did not say "either block me or I'll continue to violate policy". They don't need a formal warning, much less a block. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@JHD0919: Thanks for that attempt to throw me under the bus. My PRODs have been careful and targeted and have not attracted general opposition. Sometimes editors may have disagreed with a particular one, but I am following process at all times. My log demonstrates that. I have always conducted checks before proposing deletion (checking the GNIS entry, checking satellite and street view, general searches).

I was going to make a comment here generally defending your editing and the majority of your PRODs but your attempt to incriminate me in this dispute shows remarkably poor judgement. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, the fact that WP:DILIGENCE is even a thing is infuriating to me. In my opinion, editors should never be required to search for additional sources before PRODing or nominating an article. There are sources they could miss due to lack of knowledge of certain websites and books, the process can sometimes take literal days to complete, and it's a horrendously grueling task - certain ppl, such as yours truly, can get bored & frustrated easily after spending hour after hour looking for things to cite, let alone the mere prospect of such. For these reasons, I have never even remotely bothered to search for sources prior to PRODing and nominating articles - not even in my IP days. JHD0919 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: I would also suggest a post-block ban on creating PRODs and AfDs. If you'd prefer I go through ANI let me know. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to issue that kind of restriction, so that would have to go through ANI. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I think that would be an unnecessary over-reaction and I would oppose it at ANI. A large portion of the PRODs were appropriate. If you look at JHD0919's edit history, many PRODs from early February were deleted without objection. We also don't know what JHD0919 plans on doing if and when they return and a pre-emptive topic ban is pointless. @JHD0919: You aren't required to search for "literal days". Basic checks such as Google search, Google News, checking the GNIS entry, checking satellite imagery is fairly simple and easy. Of course, having said that, all this should have been done by the page creators, who did us a great disservice. AusLondonder (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We also don't know what JHD0919 plans on doing if and when they return I plan on continuing to PROD the unincorporated community articles, just like I have been doing. I won't object to a ban from PRODing if it comes down to that, however. JHD0919 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Based on your commitment to resume the exact behavior you were blocked for, I am adding an indefinite block. You may appeal this in accordance with the guide to appealing blocks. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

JHD0919 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Let me first start off by saying that I wanted to wait until all my PRODs and AfDs were done with before I began appealing. I've used that time to reflect on my actions, and I have a lot of thoughts.

When I first read WP:DILIGENCE, I hated it. I know Aus said above that the source-searching process was simple, but when I first read about it I began to think of how long it'd take me to find applicable sources, which led me to think about how long it could take me to do so, which in turn made me very angry. The prospect of having to spend days on end trying to look for sources frustrated me. However, I now realize that the reason I refused to follow DILIGENCE and considered it a garbage policy at the time wasn't because I felt the process could take a while, but simply because I was lazy. The reason I didn't want to spend a few minutes doing a basic task was because I just couldn't be bothered to do so. Yeah, I know it's a pathetic reason, but that was just my mindset at the time.

So if I was too lazy to look for sources to add to articles, how could I tell which ones I wanted to PROD? Simple - just by looking at them. If an "unincorporated community in the United States" article consisted of just a few sentences and few sources, it was getting PRODed, no ifs ands or buts. The reason I was judging whether to PROD those articles simply based on how they look was because I automatically assumed that if an article was that short, it was impossible for it to be expanded upon - because if it WAS possible, someone would've already done so. WP:HEY was clearly a foreign concept to me.

But why was I even PRODing those "unincorporated community" articles in the first place? If I didn't make it clear before, it was because of Aus. Back in January, I first saw him PRODing various "unincorporated community in West Virginia" articles and almost immediately realized "holy hell, these articles are really short! Why did nobody PROD them sooner?" I did some digging, and ended up discovering there a whole lot of "unincorporated community" articles from throughout the United States that were as short and stubby as those in West Virginia.

So I decided right then and there that I was gonna take it upon myself to PROD articles that were short and stubby - it was gonna be a solo clean-up effort of sorts. However, what I failed to realize was the fundamental difference between my PRODs and Aus' PRODs. Whereas Aus ended up doing the WP:BEFORE check and actually made sure there weren't any more sources about the "unincorporated community" articles he was PRODing, I, as I mentioned above, was too lazy to do so. Because I held Aus to my own standard, I ended up throwing him under the bus, claiming he should've been blocked for doing exactly what I was doing, despite that clearly not being the case. Aus, if you're reading this, I'm so sorry for what I said about you.

Combine all this with my ever-growing lack of confidence in my ability to write good PROD/AfD rationales, and it's now become obvious to me that I'm not even remotely equipped to PROD and AfD-nominate articles. Thus, I've decided I won't be nominating any articles for either PROD or AfD unless I conduct a BEFORE/DILIGENCE search beforehand - which, given that I'm still too lazy to do so, won't be happening for a while. I still want to contribute to AfD/XfD discussions created by others, because I believe I'm still capable of judging whether articles and the like should be kept or deleted, and I'll still nominate categories, templates, and the like for discussion if I feel it's warranted, but nominating articles is an entirely different beast that I'm clearly not capable of handling, if this chain of events is any indication.

In regards to the "utterly pathetic" comments, I was simply pissed that my RFPP request was declined, and I ended up taking it out on the folks at ANI. In regards to the GRAVEDANCING stuff, while I still believe it's pointless for inactive users to receive notification messages they're clearly never gonna read, I had absolutely no business unilaterally deciding that sort of thing for them, and I feel so stupid for not realizing that until it was pointed out to me. JHD0919 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per my comment below. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• JHD0919 I appreciate your comments and apology. I think your unblock request is a very positive sign - you're recognising how your actions and attitude was perceived as disruptive, engaged in self-reflection, and committed to change your behaviour if unblocked, all of which are positive things. Because blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, I hope an admin, in consultation with HouseBlaster, considers whether it would be appropriate to lift the indef block. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I was born at night...but not last night. Re-read their comments from three weeks ago and you don't get the sense this is a "lazy" editor, but this isn't my decision. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Could you tell what you will do differently when you are feeling pissed about something instead of taking it out on other users? We all get emotional and angry about things sometimes, but it's how we handle it that matters. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  If I'm feeling pissed about something somebody said, it's probably best if I disengage from the conversation. That way, I will avoid giving an angry response that could get me into deep trouble. JHD0919 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• HouseBlaster Do you have any comments, or is there something that you aren't seeing? 331dot (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  @331dot: I would've lifted it with a simple I won't PROD articles if I know someone objects. Welcome back, JHD0919. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, JHD0919,

Most of the categories you tagged as CSD C1 empty categories were only temporarily empty. You might go to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion (specifically this page) and untag these categories now that they are filled if you have a few moments. If you have questions, you can always bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Several of the pages I tagged had already been untagged by others. I've gone and untagged the rest. Thanks for letting me know! JHD0919 (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2026 (UTC)