User talk:JahnTeller07

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holder

Actually, half of those are blogs or otherwise non-reliable sources.
If you had used a single secondary source instead of a primary source, as I advised on the article's Talk, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So why don't you hone your reading skills a little? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All but two of the links you left on my Talk page were editorials, opinion columns, or blog posts. There were news articles from The Bulletin and Fox News. Feel free to write about Holder based on what the news articles say, not the primary sources and non-reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I'm glad we were able to work together constructively. I apologize for the nastiness of my comments above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it Malik...I knew it wasn't anything personal, thanks again JahnTeller07 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Barack Obama

I see that you are trying to fix the article's neutrality. I applaud you for that, but I'm sorry to say that the way you're going about it will simply result in an indef block. The reason for this is because the article's regular editors are mostly supporters of Obama and work collectively to make sure he is portrayed in a positive light. I do not believe they (collectively) are being malicious, and I honestly think that they are trying their best to be neutral. They simply do not understand what they are subconsciously doing: bias is clouding their judgment. We all have biases, and the only way to overcome them is to first understand that they exist. That is the key to making the article more neutral.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what can I do? There seems to be no way of convincing them. JahnTeller07 (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spend the next two weeks thinking about it. You now know that edit warring is not a solution.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August, 2010

Cut this out.[1][2][3][4][5] I see you're edit-warring across various articles to try to add content that supports a conservative political position, and have been blocked for it, so you ought to know better by this point. Please assume good faith, do not accuse other editors of bias, and if you do wish to discuss disputed edits, do so on the talk page before repeating them. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You didn't heed that, or this, so I have filed a report at WP:AN/I. Feel free to participate there, but please stop the aggressive editing on the Obama article and talk pages while we sort this out. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Barack Obama and pursuing your stated purpose on Wikipedia, which is to work against administrators. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. Toddst1 (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2010 (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).

JahnTeller07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not edit warring...I was told that I was free to put anything in the talk pages that I felt would better the article, and that's what I've been doing. I haven't been reverting and editing the actual article, I've just been adding what I feel would make the article better to the TALK PAGE (which as I understood was the point of the talk page) O also it says I'm a sock, which is completely inaccurate. I don't understand what I was doing wrong because it was directed at the talk page. Maybe if I was given a warning that opinions are not welcome on the talk page I would've stopped, but that's what my understanding about the talk page was.

Decline reason:

Considering that you were recently blocked under the usernames UGAdawgs2010, UGAdawgs2011, UGAdawgs2012, and Ihateobama1989 -- no. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:04, 2 August 2010 (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.

No action on your unblock request, but noticed and wanted to point out that your block message above says 'Indefinite' but really your block is for 2 weeks. I'm going to ping Toddst1 about it to confirm which one he intended (I assume the 2 weeks). Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's two weeks that's not outrageous, but I think an idef. would be.

Tell us about your coming to Wikipedia to "try and counteract some of the bias from the admins on wikipedia. Unfortunately they think that they are all knowing, and refuse to listen to anybody else so they can go on their power trips." Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (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).

JahnTeller07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea who those people are.

Decline reason:

No reason for unblocking given. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ikilled007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be sock puppets of two different accounts??? Did you ever stop to think that me, as well as some other banned users were editing on the same article because the article is about THE PRESIDENT? That's probably a pretty popular article to edit. Run a check on this so I can show you I have nothing to do with either Ikilled007, UGADawgs, or any of the other accounts I'm being accused of having connections with. JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2010 (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).

JahnTeller07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my reason for requesting unblock is that I didn't disturb any actual article, and hence did not edit war. I was of the understanding that I could express my opinions for how to make the article better in the talk pages, and that's what I did. I have no idea who ikilled007, ugadawgs, or ihateobama1989 are; and I'd appreciate if someone ran some sort of program or something on these users in order to prove that I'm not them. I was NOT edit warring, because I was expressing my opinions on how to make the article better on the talk pages. Is that not what they are for? JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (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).

JahnTeller07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason I was blocked was because I was "edit warring" even though I wasn't, because I was just taking part in a discussion on the talk page

Decline reason:

Jpgordon (a checkuser) indicates above that this is not your first account. This is considered block evasion and that issue needs to be addressed before you can be unblocked. TN X Man 19:32, 2 August 2010 (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.

There's a good deal of repeated reversion in your contributions history, actually, though none that goes over WP:3RR. This doesn't necessarily mean it ISN'T edit warring, merely that it doesn't meet the bright-line rule that says it is. But that's a side note. What I want to say is this request probably needs to wait on Checkuser results for sockpuppetry before any decisions are made, since the CU has been given the go-ahead. Providing the CU doesn't throw up any sockpuppetry red flags, things can be evaluated from there. - Vianello (Talk) 18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, how will I know when the CU makes his eval? JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]