User talk:JJRambo

Post a message to JJRambo

Welcome

Hello, JJRambo, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Shirt58 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hmm...

Hello JJRambo. You seem rather familiar with Wikipedia for a new editor. Just sayin'... --Shirt58 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJRambo, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi JJRambo! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 72Dino (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock. Check user said likely, not confirmed.

Decline reason:

Pointless wikilawyering. Two people said that; and that to me is a sound basis for this block. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2012 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert G. Brown

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Robert G. Brown requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 01:14, 9 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock. I need to share my view on why the aforementioned article(Robert G. Brown) should not be deleted... Nevermind, other editors already took care of it. If you don't want to unblock me, please reinstate all the articles I created. Let them stay for at least a day. I am sure that other editors will take care of those articles as well. All the article I created are legitimate and should not be deleted. I did a lot of research and used citations from sources such as New York Times. You are an administrator, so you can see my deleted contributions as well. If you have any doubt, you can refer this case to DGG or Bbb23, administrators who deal with these kind of articles. Thanks

Decline reason:

Apart from the already obvious evidence, if you were a new user you would not even know of these admins, let alone what their expertise might be.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:40, 9 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't care whether or not you unblock me. Thanks to other constructive editors, one of my articles was saved. If time was provided, they would save my other articles as well. I put a lot of effort to create those articles for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. Please allow administrators who deal with these kind of articles to see my "deleted contribution history" and take the appropriate action. Marco Guzman, Jr tried to speedily delete both http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Brown and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NYU_Polytechnic_Institute_people without success.--JJRambo[[User talk:JJRamboMISSILE]] ^DIE 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request from this checkuser verified block evading sockpuppet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:52, 10 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't want to get unblocked and I don't need to get unblocked. I don't know how the checkuser works and I don't care about how the check user works. I don't want to "misuse" this unblock request privilege. All I want is to pass my message to an administrator who deals with these kind of articles(see my previous unblock request). If you are an administrator who hasn't specialized in this particular area, just ignore this message. Let other administrators see it or just inform DGG about it. Thanks--JJRambo[[User talk:JJRamboMISSILE]] ^DIE 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as editor hasn't asked to be unblocked. If they request another unblock while not asking to be unblocked, talk page access will be revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 10 December 2012 (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.

a Teahouse invitation]]

Comment I've been informed. In fact, I'm all too well informed about the situation here. This editor should remain blocked, and talk page access revoked, and I think all single purpose editors appearing from nowhere to engage with the NYU-Poly articles (or or the CSU-Pomona articles) should at this point be blocked on sight. And it's time to consider semi-protecting afd discussions as well as articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]