User talk:Jlou17

Jlou17, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jlou17! 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 I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Springfield, Illinois. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dooney Boys

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 Dooney Boys 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 company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly 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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kilo G

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 Kilo G, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Algiers, New Orleans, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC) (talk) I am sourcing my information[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Magnolia Projects. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Algiers, New Orleans. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dooney Boys. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher Homes. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:01, 4 September 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).

Jlou17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account is not a sock poppet and the edits I made have all been sourced and all articles I have edit made sure it had references. User Magnolia677 have reverted all my edits and deleted several articles that have followed Wikipedia's guidelines and all had stable sources containing to the article. I have not made any violations to the guidelines and I strongly request an unblock byYunshui. Thank you. Jlou17 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to explain your common interest in Kilo G. MER-C 06:25, 8 September 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.

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).

Jlou17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The article Kilo G had no reason to be deleted. All references followed Wikipedia's guidelines as well so its not vandalism. The Pages that I created recently have all been deleted by user Magnolia677 for allegedly not sourcing but all article have been sourced. these are references cited from Kilo G page: http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2017/01/today-in-hip-hop-r-i-p-kilo-g-august-28-1977-january-15-1997/ https://www.discogs.com/artist/344293-Kilo-G http://www.oxfordamerican.org/item/1232-the-sleepwalker http://www.complex.com/music/50-best-cash-money-songs/kilo-g-bloody-city https://www.amoeba.com/kilo-g/artist/189042/bio http://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2016/06/new-orleans-rap

Decline reason:

This is irrelevant. You were blocked for violations of WP:SOCK. Your last unblock request, you were told you need to address this. I reiterate that. Yamla (talk) 23:18, 8 September 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.

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).

Jlou17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Jlou17 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You just confirmed engaging in sockpuppetry. When your account is blocked, you should address that, not create a new account to evade the block. Huon (talk) 02:52, 9 September 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.

last unblock request you put "You'll need to explain your common interest in Kilo G." so I did. My last account was blocked for the same issue and by the same user. My last account I was blocked for correcting adding a reference to a page that have been vandalized.

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).

Jlou17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Jlou17 (talk) 03:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even before your sock puppetry you were consistently editing disruptively. The best I can offer you is our Standard Offer - see WP:SO. You need to stay completely away from Wikipedia for 6 months; no new accounts and no editing from an IP address. I see no other way of your getting unblocked. Just Chilling (talk) 17:16, 9 September 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.

Huon I did they still blocked my whole IP address for good so I created a new account. I had no knowledge of sockpuppetry if I have engaged in it I didn't know until now. I would love to start over fresh this time. My apologies if I did violate any guidelines.

Creating a new account to evade a block on a previous account is sockpuppetry. When someone is blocked, there are serious concerns about their editing. Those concerns need to be resolved; the block is not just an invitation to create a new account and carry on as if nothing had happened. Any new accounts created to evade a block will be blocked, too; you should request your original account to be unblocked and should address the concerns that led to that original block. Only when that original block has been resolved should you resume editing. Huon (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]