User talk:JP8077

Welcome!

Hello, JP8077, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Jamie Watson (actor), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Barret (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Jamie Watson (actor)"

A page you created, Jamie Watson (actor), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Barret (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

To deny recognition to blocked users, we generally delete their userpages some time after they're blocked unless it contains information that would be helpful to others (such as if they're known to be making sockpuppets). The users you've been adding pages for are not really like that, so they don't need to (and shouldn't) have pages. In general there's really no reason to ever create a userpage for someone else, blocked or not, so please don't do it. —Soap— 18:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of June Jago

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

A tag has been placed on June Jago requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Paddy O'Brien (country singer)

The article Paddy O'Brien (country singer) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PamD 21:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Ok User:PamD I'll recreate the article with importance and significance.[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Paddy O'Brien (country singer)

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 Paddy O'Brien (country singer) 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 band or musician, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. PamD 21:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm K6ka. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Honoré de Balzac because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Specter of Newby Church

Hello JP8077,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Specter of Newby Church for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Oceangreenn (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bob Harrington (preacher)

The article Bob Harrington (preacher) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian fundamentalists

Please stop adding this category to articles which do not confirm the accuracy of this category. Quis separabit? 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have caused other editors considerable work and effort removing these categories from articles where they never belonged. It is clear your editing was in very bad faith. Quis separabit? 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning (July 2016)

If you continue editing disruptively, as you did with Category:Christian fundamentalists, you will be blocked from editing. Quis separabit? 23:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JP8077, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Chris Troutman (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (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).

JP8077 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last year, I was blocked after using this account and a quantity of my alternative accounts to add articles to the Alternative Views project, I realise many of my edits were classified as nonconstructive, hence resulting in my block. Since then, I have created numerous accounts which were later identified to be mine. This was a foolish move on my part, and in all honesty, I was unaware that I had to appeal to get this account back rather than create others, I later became aware, but was doubtful that my indefinitely blocked account would have any chance in being unblocked. I am sorry for my many unhelpful edits and fully understand if I am not granted the right to edit again on Wikipedia. There is one thing I would like to point out, however, and that's that aside from adding multiple articles to the project Alternative Views, the vast majority of my contributions to Wikipedia have not been vandalism. The vast majority of my edits I made under accounts I used after being blocked on this account were constructive. I created categories such as 20th-century British comedians, 21st-century British comedians, 20th-century American comedians, 21st-century American comedians, Russian anti-capitalists, Television writers from Northern Ireland among others, which were tagged for deletion when the accounts I used were found to be sockpuppets, but did not undergo deletion as they were viewed as useful. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Having been blocked, in September 2016, for sock puppetry, you continued to create new sock accounts. I see no reason why you should be trusted again. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2017 (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.

Yes, but I have acknowledged that. As I said, my edits were constructive, I wasn't vandalising articles, why should I not be trusted again when I acknowledge that I have done wrong and used sock accounts? JP8077(Matthew Thughorn]] (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remember, you created a bunch of junk categories against consensus and Wikipedia:CATGENDER. You've never been a constructive editor. You've created at least 14 socks and only a fool would trust you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User's edits appear to be good faith to me. I'd give them another chance. Tkwikihelper (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]