User talk:Flasty Jam 2

September 2018

Hello, I'm LakesideMiners. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Hurricane Irene— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside what do you do to un-ban people? I have been claimed for false accusation of sock puppetry. Please help me. Flasty Out! Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GAB.---Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene retirement

Why is it relevant to mention that the name Irene became Irma which in turn became Idalia? Should we mention it if Idalia becomes Ivanka after 2023, Itelle after 2029, Ina after 2035 and Inga after 2041? How does it enhance the reader's knowledge of Hurricane Irene or the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season? A consensus of Wikipedia editors including myself determined that it wasn't relevant and was rather trivial which is why it was removed. I was not aware of either Hurricane Allen or Hurricane Mitch mentioning it and will be revising those articles to remove it.Jason Rees (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. First if Idalia get retired in the 2023 Season then I will say it on the Irma page. I will not go back to Irene and say it because you are getting further away from the topic. One sentence should be enough on each page. So yeah I would not go that far anyway. And do not get rid of those points on Hurricanes Allen and Mitch you are ruining everything. Maybe make a trivia section on those topics since you say it was trivial instead of removing it completely. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Irene's retirement and replacement with Irma, which itself is being replaced by Idalia is important in the article on Irene. I will undo the note. J4lambert (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute @J4lambert: How does mentioning the fact that Irma was retired enhance the reader's knowledge of Hurricane Irene or the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season? It doesn't which is why a consensus was established to remove and not mention that piece of trivia in the article was established.Jason Rees (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flasty Jam 2:, let me warn you that you can be blocked for disruptive editing. So I recommend you leave the note alone at Hurricane Irene and follow the note's and administrators' rules. Also reverting my note is and your edit being undone is no excuse to try and "enjoy Wikipedia" as another user. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 18:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make a trivia section. That's as simple as that. That way it's relevant. So Horses and Jacob I will find out a way to put it on the article. Jacob your statement on Idalia or some other storms getting retired, will not be on the Irene page. Irma's retirement is how far I go. I will talk to someone on the matter because this issue needs to be resolved. Also like I said there a thing called Parenthesis and it's basically an after thought. After thoughts are not completely relevant but still goes along with the sentence one way or another. There is nothing wrong with my statement. I'm telling you. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Flasty Jam 2:, um, yeah there is something wrong with your statement. That is completely nonsense because it will still be irreverent. Try talking to an admin because they won't listen to your statement. Ok how about this Flasty Jam 2. Why not read the guidelines, rules, and policies so you can understand Wikipedia instead of starting an edit war on Hurricane Irene. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 22:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horses it is still relevant. Look it up. You started it. I'm trying to resolve this peacefully. And yes I will talk to an admin. This will be over. Oh and I did read it. I talked to some other people and they said it wasn't irrelevant. Jacob said it was trivial so go as far as making a trivial section. So you statement is really invalid Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Started what? This incident? I'm just being helpful. And no it isn't relevant. And when the admin says "not relevant," it will be over indeed. And look up what? Tell me what to look up. Oh by the way, you misspelled "relevant." HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah me too. Let me talk to the admin and calmly discuss it. You still are not the king/queen of Wikipedia. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is king/queen of Wikipedia. And what admin are you going to talk too? Jason? He still will say "it's irrelevant". And trivial in an irrelevant way. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok listen, here a topic: My dad ate my cookie. Now I wanted to add an afterthought. So I two options: (which was my favorite cookie) or (Cars are really amazing) The second was too irrelevant because cars have nothing to do with it. The first one would have fit better. How at this point could you still say it's irrelevant. Nothing. Also it's past tense. You should have said "would have said".Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic. Totally useless. And can't predict the future. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? Your statement was irrelevant What does predicting the future anything to do with this. Your statement is more irrelevant than the second sentence and way more irrelevant than the afterthought of Irma's retirement. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking about "topics." Just get familiar with Wikipedia and stop worrying about irrelevant stuff. And stop worrying about irrelevant stuff about Hurricane Irene. You're just new to Wikipedia. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not new. I had another account. Ok Jason is the admin but there's people higher than the admin. So I will find a way to talk to them to resolve this issue. Jason did something very terrible today and it need to stop. And they didn't get in trouble. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, is this account another account from your previous account? If so, you might be in SERIOUS trouble. Only if you have permission, you will be blocked for having 2 accounts for Illegitimate reasons. See this. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proof that I am a sock puppet. I made this account because I could not remember what account I had. I basically forgot my username. Do you have photographic evidence? Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You said you had another account. Duh. And there will be proof you are a sock one day. And how could you even forget your username? HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I did forget my username. Just like millions of people who hadn't used their accounts for a while. But I can find it but that doesn't mean I made this account for no reason. DUH. I can read. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't care. Edit whatever you want and risk block. I tried to help and correct you anyways. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 23:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy I'm not going to edit right now but I will later. Jason even said that he wasn't the administrator. It's just his opinion. So I will do something about it. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just my opinon though, other people have the same opinon and have come to a consensus about it by talking about the issue, which is mroe important on Wikipedia than you realise.Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw your consensus. Cooper is my guy. He knows what he's talking about. It is one simple fact. I will not state other retirements that is beyond Irma in this case. It's an afterthought. Afterthoughts are not suppose to be completely relevant. But it still has to have something to do with topic. If I just talk about horses then it's irrelevant even in parenthesis. If you look in the comment section and look in parenthesis then you know what I am talking about. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw the consensus then you should respect it, as we all know what we are talking about. Also regardless if its an afterthought, in brackets or jumping to and from the moon it is not relevant or appropriate to mention it.Jason Rees (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again your saying that I'm going way with it this. Your saying that I am talking about potatoes rather than talking about hurricanes. Beside I wouldn't get in trouble by Wikipedia if I say that afterthought. It doesn't draw away from the topic. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No im not saying that you are talking about potatoes, I am telling you that it isnt relevant and that we do not need to say that the replacements of Allen/Irene/Mitch were retired themselves. Especially when we are talking about weather systems that have nothing to do with each other and just share a common name. Also you can get into trouble by not respecting a clearly formed consensus or continuing to insert random facts that are unsourced or unsourceable like the replacements of Allen/Irene/Mitch were retired.Jason Rees (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude that was an example. So you need to get sources for my info. Well maybe I'll get my own consensus. It's just you and a bunch of other random people. And well no crap it's not the same system it's just a name. That fact is not random. It's real and factual. And of course it's not 100% relevant. But again if you are not an admin then why do you "claim" the article is yours. You don't own it. It's completely fine. Heck I even went to the sandbox and it was approved. So yeah. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is getting out of hand now. 1) My name is Jason and not Jacob. 2) I am not an administrator of Wikipedia and am just an oridnary editor, who's been around the block several times. 3) You have yet to provide an argument that states WHY including the fact that Irma was retired is so important that it needs to be added and the same goes for Mitch/Allen. 4) You have yet to provide an argument that states WHY we should ignore the consensus that was made a few months ago 4) I wasn't naughty earlier by removing the fact that Andrew and Matthew were retired because its irrelevant and trivial 5) Yeah we could add in a trivia section but then Wikipedia is not an endless collection of facts and a consensus of Wikipedia editors have decided that it isn't relevant to include the fact that the replacements for Irene/Ivan/Mitch/Allen were later retired since its not relevant to the topic and we do not provide a running commentary on such trivial matters.00:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you could have forgotten the account Flasty Jam (talk · contribs), which also seems focused solely on hurricane name retirements. If you have no interest in editing any other topics, your tenure at Wikipedia will likely be short; your posting on so many user-talk pages to try to find a sympathetic ear is unlikely to help you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...who are you? And I'm fight for my rights just like you do so I want this issue to be resolved so that it can potentially help someone. Oh and for your information that's not my account. I couldn't use that name so I just put a 2. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what: on this site, you have no rights other than to leave and vanish or fork the site. See WP:ADMINSHOP, WP:CANVASSING, and WP:MEAT for why it's frowned upon to actively contact so many different editors asking to side with you on a content dispute.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can random people stop coming over to the chat and say stuff. How do you even form a consensus. Jason did it. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Consensus. It's unlikely one will be formed in favor of your edits, however.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see Jasper. If Jason did it and he is an ordinary editor then maybe. It's not impossible. This is bigger than Irene. Jason has screwed up a bunch of articles relating to this but he is missing the picture. I love tropical cyclones and I think that most if not all information is regarded to the storm. Now it may be like 30% of a chance of me gathering a consensus because they might think this is an argument. So this discussion is over. DO NOT REPLY AFTER THIS! Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irreverent edit reverted on Hurricane Mitch

@Flasty Jam 2: I reverted your edit to Hurricane Mitch because that was extremely irrelevant. Mitch happened 18 years before Matthew, but you’re adding more irrelevant info to a storm that happened 20 years ago on Hurricane Matthew? Nah. Irrelevant. Please learn what you’re about to edit. HorsesARENice^{Ride me to my talk page} 13:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't care. It's over ok. If the dude was able to put the thing in there then why didn't he get banned, because there is nothing wrong. You clearly don't know what an afterthought is. I will put up a consensus and fix this. This conversation is over. Do Not Say Anything Else. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flasty Jam 2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Flasty Jam 2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Reporting liers

Anyone who is responsible of banning me will be reported and They will be banned. That was the last straw.

In the end, you, and only you, are responsible for abusing multiple accounts. Threatening us does not accomplish anything.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You lied. I don't even know those accounts and you don't have prove. Lying is wrong and you will be accounted for that.Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. It was pretty obvious from the get-go. Also, you explicitly admitted that "No I'm not new. I had another account" above. --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... I had forgotten my username. It has been a year and a half since I been on Wikipedia. So if you forgot it then you can't get back on. So I made another account. Read the information smart one. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So explain why a.those accounts had really similar behavior to you, b.they were created right around the same time as you, and c.they have been confirmed to be you by CheckUser. I'd recommend you don't fight/cuss at us if you wish to be unblocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright first those accounts do not have my email address. Second, I work in the school so I'm using a school computer so it's not mine. Third I host a wikipedia club at school and the topic I choose in school was on the weather. So I tell my attendees to edit some articles in school. One of my students who is Snazzy Fam boi (who I let use my computer) saw the Irene article and how she wanted to edit it. So I said sure. She must have edit it last night. And looking in the history her edit was undone by you people. Now Flasty Jam I do not know who he even is. He is not one of my students. Maybe some dude in school most likely I don't know. When I made my new account Flasty Jam (my favorite Youtube channel) was taken. So I used Flasty Jam 2 instead. And look at what your typing. Those accounts were not made at the same time. And here we go again making false claims again. I've not cussed as you can see in the chat. Maybe you need the read the article first before you jump to anything. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BROTHER is not accepted as an excuse; recruiting others to (evidently) side with you is considered equally as bad as actual multiple account misuse. When I said don't "fight/cuss", I meant don't address me as "smart one" or a "liar". After all, I am using my own free time to offer you an explanation. I don't have to do that. "Around the same time" also is a strictly weaker statement than "at the same time", so once again, I'm not the wrong one here.

You also do not have the right or prerogative to act as if we must accept your argument after long rejecting it, especially as you have provided basically no new argument other than the one that has already been soundly rejected. It's getting to the point where you're flogging a dead horse, to be brutally honest.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. You do realize that I didn't do this whole discrepancy for the class to get back at you. I didn't tell the girl to do this for me. She just did it because she wants to. I'm not pointing any fingers. At this point I don't care about the Irene article right now. I want my account back to normal. Maybe I went a little tiny bit overbored with the smart one statement. But still the sock puppet issue is very false. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my account back

Can someone help get my account back. I have been falsely accused of sock puppetry so help me in a respectful manner. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my account back and to pretend this never happened

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).

Flasty Jam 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't use sock puppetry. Those two accounts are not mine nor did I tell others to do my work. They were the same IP address because I was using the school library computers. And I am the leader of the Wikipedia club in school so we were doing hurricanes. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

CheckUser (which checks more than IP address) confirms the connection (including user:Flasty Jam, with which you deny any connection at all). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:39, 10 September 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.

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).

Flasty Jam 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will check one of my student and talk to them to see who has these two accounts. I'm considering deleting those two accounts. But I can't run a wikipedia club without my account. I really do not know who user:Flasty Jam. Look I will find out and you can unblock. Please understand.

Decline reason:

You don't know who Flasty Jam is, yet you call yourself Flasty Jam 2 and edit from the same computer? The technical data (which relies on more than IP addresses) is one of the clearest matches I have ever seen; you are lying. I'm removing your talkpage access, since there's obviously no point in allowing you to carry on bullshitting us. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:58, 10 September 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'm responding to the email you sent me, just to say do not email me again. You can use WP:UTRS should you one day decide to be honest. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm not interested in hearing a lot more Bullshit about your wikipedia club from you and thus I won't be emailing you back.Jason Rees (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. Email access removed as well. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cuss at me Jason and Yunshui. That is not appropriate. Do not let me see that again. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Flasty Jam 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22701 was submitted on Sep 18, 2018 21:01:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your UTRS request, I have restored your ability to edit this talk page so you can make a similar request here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 19 September 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).

Flasty Jam 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I decided to be up front and honest with you. I'm sorry for sock puppeting. It is wrong and I read over the guidelines and I will not let my club members do my dirty work ever again (meat puppet) and I will contribute relevant articles this time. And lying is also wrong so I realized if I was going to get anywhere I was going to tell the truth. There's no point of lying anymore. I will not use "Flasty Jam" or "Snazzy Fam boi" ever again. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As stated below, the only option you have left is to take the standard offer. That means no editing at all, sock or IP for 6 months. DO that, come back to us in 6 months, and we can consider an unblock at that time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:12, 19 September 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 won't review this request (as I have reviewed a previous one), but given the extent of the disruption and lies, and the amount of other people's time you have wasted, I suspect the best you are likely to get is the WP:Standard Offer. That would mean staying away for at least six months without editing here at all and then making a new request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait for 6 months to edit again. The whole school year would be gone by then and my club will shut down. I've just started. I will not sock puppet ever again but to wait six months is not fair. Look I'm sorry to waste everyone's time and being disruptive. Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait for 6 months

I would hate to wait six months to reapply again. I have a club to run and I've just started this club in August. I started very badly with the sock puppeting thing and I might have caused disruption. Is there any other way I can contribute in any way where I edit articles on you behave without waiting for six months and my whole school year wasted? I not going to sock ever again. Look if that doesn't work then can it be pushed back to December or even the end of the month? Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'm removing talk page access AGAIN after this. No, we will not reconsider another unblock at this time. Your only option now is to request an unblock in 6 months, through UTRS. You lied to a number of editors and admins, both on wiki and email, causing that privilege to be revoked. I'm sorry you have a club to run, however you have shown a complete lack of understanding on how to edit on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have got this the wrong way round. Wikipedia is not here to serve you and your club; volunteer editors are here to serve Wikipedia and its readers. So you need to convince us why having you editing here would benefit Wikipedia, not making your demands about what you want for your club. But as has been made clear to you - that will be no sooner than six months time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Flasty Jam 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22741 was submitted on Sep 24, 2018 18:32:58. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Do not circumvent the restriction against using Special:EmailUser by using it on another wiki, especially if you're only going to say you're going to appeal again in 5 months. Well, guess what: if I were the admin reviewing it, I'd consider that email you sent 7 hours ago to be a violation of WP:STANDARDOFFER and therefore, you again have 6 months to wait, because circumventing the restriction against emailing others, in my opinion, counts against that. Any additional email you send me will be construed the same way. Do not email me again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Flasty Jam 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24863 was submitted on Apr 23, 2019 18:55:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]