Jump to content

User talk:Jarrodaus11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jarrodaus11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick Jarrodaus11 (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lazarus Rising: A Personal And Political Autobiography

[edit]

The article Lazarus Rising: A Personal And Political Autobiography has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails all of the criteria at WP:NBOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrodaus--the article is unsourced. Add 3 sources (the ones I placed on AfD, if you like) and the AfD should result in Keep. If you need any help, post a request at WT:RIGHT and/or WP:AWNB. Lionel (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you help! Jarrodaus11 (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Greens

[edit]

If you add the tag you must raise a detailed discussion of your justification on the article's talk page. Please do so or it *will* be removed. Timeshift (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to echo Timeshift's advice. These tags should be accompanied with explanations on the talkpage.  -- Lear's Fool 14:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

[edit]
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).

Jarrodaus11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just cannot believe this. I am honestly not a sock of EnidBlyton11. If you look at User:EnidBlyton11 there are many differnces. I have never received a warning for abuse or breaches of policy. The two things we have both edited are 2011 in Australia and The Age. Sure, there are similarities. But take a look at a the time differnce between when EnidBlyton was banned and when I started editing. Look at my helpful and constructive editing. Look at how I have created pages. I am really surprised it has come to this. I used to edit as an IP as I said before. My only other account is User:Jarrodaus11copy which has also been banned. Try and come up with some better evidence other than just a few similarities. I have never engaed in disruptive editing, Enid has. I have never vandalized, Enid has. PLEASE review this block. I have really enjoyed being a editor on wikipedia. I am a new editor, if I have done something wrong, whatever it is please point it out, don't just block. Try and WP:Assume good faith.

Decline reason:

You're blocked because you appear to have used the same computer and internet connection as an indefinitely blocked editor. This has been confirmed by a Checkuser. Policies such as WP:BITE are relevant, but only if you were indeed a new user - and the evidence suggests that this is not the case. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:27, 21 April 2011 (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.

If you could be bothered to take a look at the top of my page you would see I joined on 5 Arpil. So yes, WP:BITE as is WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL and even WP:QUICKSOCK is relevant. I am using an open network, but I am certainly not using the same computer. Look at my positve contributions. Look at Enid's negative contributions. What the hell do Wikipedia editors have against me? Is this really all about politics? Jarrodaus11 (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2011 (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).

Jarrodaus11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you could be bothered to take a look at the top of my page you would see I joined on 5 Arpil. So yes, WP:BITE as is WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL and even WP:QUICKSOCK is relevant. I am using an open network, but I am certainly not using the same computer. Look at my positve contributions. Look at Enid's negative contributions. What the hell do Wikipedia editors have against me? Is this really all about politics? Look at this interesting policy too WP:TIMEOUT 'Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy' and 'Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block'. And if I have done something so ban in my short time here, could some one tell me what it is.

Decline reason:

I've looked through the history, and it seems clear that this is an alternate account of Enidblyton11. I see eight articles overlap, and half or more of those are very, very low traffic. This edit in particular is fixing an infobox parameter that the primary account added before. The checkuser results make this discussion moot, however. That appears to be an unambiguous result. Kuru (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2011 (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).

Jarrodaus11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never, ever had another account. I used to edit as an IP address, but found I could not create pages. I have never misused this account. I am shocked and disgusted at this block which is clearly politicaly motivated. Because I dared to question the Greens. This is an attack on free speech. I don't have another account. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 11:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sock. TNXMan 11:28, 21 April 2011 (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.

Jarrodaus11 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC) I just cannot believe this. I am honestly not a sock of EnidBlyton11. If you look at User:EnidBlyton11 there are many differnces. I have never received a warning for abuse or breaches of policy. The two things we have both edited are 2011 in Australia and The Age. Sure, there are similarities. But take a look at a the time differnce between when EnidBlyton was banned and when I started editing. Look at my helpful and constructive editing. Look at how I have created pages. I am really surprised it has come to this. I used to edit as an IP as I said before. My only other account is User:Jarrodaus11copy which has also been banned. Try and come up with some better evidence other than just a few similarities. I have never engaed in disruptive editing, Enid has. I have never vandalized, Enid has. PLEASE review this block. I have really enjoyed being a editor on wikipedia. I am a new editor, if I have done something wrong, whatever it is please point it out, don't just block. Try and WP:Assume good faith.Jarrodaus11 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the reviewing admin: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stravin. This user is a sock of Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs) who was indefinitely blocked for serious BLP vandalism, and has also vandalised as 144.136.101.108 (talk · contribs). At Talk:Sophie Mirabella#Proposed removal of irrelevant paragraph, he or she edited with both accounts in an obvious attempt to deceive during a consensus building discussion.  -- Lear's Fool 03:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the reviewing admin. I am not a sock puppet of Enidblyton11. I am really disappointed that our differnces have come to this Lear's Fool. Are YOU a sock puppet of TimeShift9 (talk · contribs)?. In regards to the IP address, that is my IP address, which I have openly admitted to having. You may notice on the talk Talk:Sophie Mirabella#Proposed removal of irrelevant paragraph it appears I never supported my own proposal. That's becasue I was not automatically logged out when I wrote on the talk page. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claim the reason I am a 'sock puppet' is because I am a Conservative. Does that mean that because you are a left-wing Australian Labor Party / Australian Greens supporter you are a sock puppet of User:TimeShift9 or another left-winger?Jarrodaus11 (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and commentary like the one above will of course never lead to an unblock. If you wish to be aggressive with your editing and/or political views, there are places for free blogs ... or Conservapedia or something like that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not. I have always tried to be impartial in my editing. I have never once actually said I was a conservative. I am a Liberal Party of Australia supporter. I am never 'aggressive'. Please try and explain what you mean. I have only been an editor for a few weeks but have experinced an incredible amount of hostility and abuse from editors. Why are Lear's Fool and TimeShift9 allowed to be biased? Why am I the one being targeted? What about WP:GOOD FAITH?Jarrodaus11 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the following are interesting policies for you guys to read WP:BITE and WP:CIVILJarrodaus11 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this WP:QUICKSOCKJarrodaus11 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not happening. No amount of faux whinging will change that. I suggest you get over it and move on. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the only mistake I made was to upset the left-wing trolls like you. WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL and WP:GOOD FAITH. Try reading some policies, adminJarrodaus11 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin. Timeshift (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2011 (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).

Jarrodaus11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I have never, ever received a warning for disruptive or abusive editing unlike EnidBlyton1 who received many warnings and temporary blocks. 2. I use an ISP that uses a shared IP. 3. Enidblyton1 is an inactive account that has not edited since January 2011. 4. I have made many positive contributions such as creating the following pages: Brian Loughnane, Australian Liberal Students' Federation and more. 5. I am sorry for breaching Wikipedia policy, but I was not aware of these policies. I promise and confirm that I will follow all policies in future. 6. The indefinite block is only used in 'extreme' circumstances such as 'major' breaches of policy. 7. I really enjoy being a Wikipedian and making positive contributions to the site. 8. I have helped revert vandalism in the past. 9. The admin that banned me is User:Lear's Fool with whom I have had a long-running dispute with other politics (see Sophie Mirabella talk. 10. Please give me a chance and I will do whatever is required to make this situation better Jarrodaus11 (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have extensively studied your editing history, and those of 144.136.101.108 and Enidblyton11, and even on behavioural evidence the case of sockpuppetry is proved way beyond all reasonable doubt. The checkuser evidence gives further confirmation. There is a significant possibility that you have abused a number of other accounts. In addition, the claim that, unlike your Enidblyton11 account, this account has done only good editing, does not hold up: consider, for example, your pretence to be two different people at Talk:Sophie Mirabella. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2011 (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 note to the reviewing admin: I am a new editor and only started editing on 5 April. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also refer to WP:CIVIL, WP:QUICKSOCK WP:BITE AND WP:QUICKSOCK Jarrodaus11 (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

[edit]

Enid, let me give you some advice, partly in response to your e-mail. I appreciate that you have made some positive contributions to the encyclopaedia, with this account, as well as Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs) and 144.136.101.108 (talk · contribs). Despite your implications to the contrary, I do not believe your position as a supporter of the Liberal Party should preclude you from editing: there are a number of Liberal editors involved in articles on Australian Politics, and the Wikiproject is better for their participation.

If you would like to be unblocked and become an exclusively constructive contributor to Wikipedia, you need to do a few things. First and foremost, you need to come completely clean about your abuse (and it has been an abuse) of multiple accounts. Your use of multiple accounts to deceive, avoid blocks and vandalise is obvious from your editing behaviour, and has been confirmed by an experienced checkuser. This is clear to all of the editors who have seen or reviewed this block, and the longer you deny it, the less likely it is you will receive a second chance. Given the serious nature of some of your vandalism, particularly on Tony Windsor, it is unlikely that you would be unblocked straight away even if you do come clean. However, if you stop making disruptive accusations against other editors, admit to your misuse of multiple accounts, give a good-faith commitment to only edit constructively, and spend some time drafting content on this talkpage, I will consider reviewing this block.

On the other hand, if you continue to make vexatious unblock requests without admitting to your misconduct, your ability to edit this page will be removed. The choice is yours.  -- Lear's Fool 15:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lear's Fool, thanks for your response. I created this account to try and have a new start on wikipedia. On my old account which I no longer use as it was hacked and blocked I did misuse the account and make negative contributions to the project. I was not aware that it was against wikipedia policy to create a new account. In relation to the Tony Windsor assassination hoax, I can honestly say my account was hacked by a fellow mischief maker at the time. I admit to other abusive behaviors on this site under my old account such as petty vandalism. I would like to point out some of the pages I created: Lin family murders, Australian Protectionist Party, Flood levy, Commission of Inquiry into the 2010-11 Queensland floods, Wyatt Roy, Brian Loughnane and more. Another thing I work on is adding the majority of politicians as seen at Adam Bandt, Andrew Wilkie, Clover Moore, Andrew Cornwell, Greg Piper, Richard Torbay and more. I paid the penalty for my vandalism in the past, and I would like to make a positive and helpful contribution in the future. Thanks Jarrodaus11 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight:
Do you honestly expect us to believe your account was hacked? Forget it, I gave you a chance to own up you haven't taken it. You're obviously not here to contribute in good faith.  -- Lear's Fool 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite openly and honestly admited to doing things wrong on Wikipedia. If you see some of my positive contributions like I have tried to point out to you you would see I am here to contribute in good faith. I would like to have another chance. Everyone makes mistakes. Even you. The reason I opened a new account was so I could have a new start on Wikipedia, without the burden of past mistakes. I would like to point out some of the pages I created: Lin family murders, Australian Protectionist Party, Flood levy, Commission of Inquiry into the 2010-11 Queensland floods, Wyatt Roy, Brian Loughnane and more. Another thing I work on is adding the majority of politicians as seen at Adam Bandt, Andrew Wilkie, Clover Moore, Andrew Cornwell, Greg Piper, Richard Torbay and more. I am trying to take this chance, but I have a sinking eeling that you are bluffing me. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I admit my involvement in the Tony Windsor hoax. I am sorry for this, and I think we should move on. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got to love the comments coming from TimeShift. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add to Timeshift's comment.  -- Lear's Fool 15:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanksa for breaking your promise. I admited to my part in the Tony Windsor hoax. I admited to owning the User:EnidBlyton11 account, yet you still won't allow me a chance. I kept my part of the deal I admitted my mistakes and yet you won't give me a chance. I have tried to have a new start on Wikipedia. I would like to point out some of the pages I created: Lin family murders, Australian Protectionist Party, Flood levy, Commission of Inquiry into the 2010-11 Queensland floods, Wyatt Roy, Brian Loughnane and more. We all make mistakes. If you see the EnidBlyton talk page it says banned for WP:GOTHACKED. Why does the talk page say I had been hacked if I haven't? Jarrodaus11 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Lear's Fool continues to have nothing to add to my comment. You had your get out of jail free card handed to you on a platter and you spat on it. Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please mind your own business and butt out. I'm starting to thnk you are a WP:SOCKPUPPET of Lear's. I actually took the oppourtunity, did what was requested and admitted my part in the hoax. I take full responsibility. I am sorry for it. I am asking for another chance.Jarrodaus11 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

[edit]

I have removed your talkpage access on this account. All unblock requests should be made at User talk:Enidblyton11.  -- Lear's Fool 11:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: September 2011

[edit]
The Right Stuff
September 2011
FROM THE EDITOR
An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

 Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS
New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

 A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

ARTICLE REPORT
3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

 On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jarrodaus11&oldid=1077348299"