User talk:JohnWayneCourier

Welcome!

Hello, JohnWayneCourier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! - Shiftchange (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWayneCourier, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JohnWayneCourier! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Macquarie Street Ninja

Hello JohnWayneCourier,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Macquarie Street Ninja 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. War wizard90 (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie Street Ninja

Hello. I have just noticed your rather extensive contributions concerning this incident. While I commend your efforts (most particularly your meticulous citation), I believe that this constitutes undue weight and they should all be pared down to a sentence at most (if at all; I'm inclined to think the whole thing comes under WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTNEWS). I have started a centralised discussion on this matter here, and invite you to comment. Frickeg (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. From reviewing your contributions, it appears that you are Gloriousrevolution (talk · contribs). I note in particular the pattern of edits to articles concerning the Eureka ‎Flag (and the opinionated content of these edits) and edits suggesting that Indigenous Australians are in decline (in particular, the obvious similarities between [1] and [2]). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm just trying to make a contribution. I'm a newbie. What did I do wrong? Instead of this, why don't you give me some constructive advice? I'm happy to be reasonable and talk about these edits I proposed on the relevant talk pages. It was all sourced material. There's nothing opinionated about it, and I see no examples of such edits have been cited. I'll admit, I could have truncated down some of what I have written even more, but is that a banning offence? They were basically all quality additions. The Eureka flag article in particular is light years ahead of where it was. There has been articles in the mainstream media citing the demographic threat indigenous Australians are facing, so there's nothing new or novel in that either, and would it be so horrible if there was just a one world race one day??? (see here http://www.news.com.au/national/more-aborigines-entering-mixed-marriages/story-e6frfkvr-1225696982117). I see the article on Indigenous Australians as it stands already states: "The proportion of Aboriginal adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-Aboriginal spouses has increased to 74% according to the 2011 census, up from 71% in 2006, 64% in 1996, 51% in 1991 and 46% in 1986.". Given the sensibilities involved, I'd be happy to take any proposed edits concerning this contentious subject to the talk page in the first instance from now on.

All in all it's not as bad as its being made to sound is it? JohnWayneCourier (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block is applied because you have created this account to avoid a previous block. This is block evasion, which is not allowed, and this is the issue which you must address in any future unblock request. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:20, 3 January 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

If block evasion is the only substantial issue. If I was ever blocked before. It was that long ago now I honestly don't recall anything about it. In my jurisdiction, even criminal convictions get expunged after ten years. I've already seen that it seems like anyone who is prepared to admit Australian aborigines are and will keep integrating into the host culture are in for a very tough slog on wikipedia, even with all the references in the world behind you. It seems remarkable to me to find census figures for the exogamy rate in the article on Indigenous Australians at all. There's no POV pushing going on here. What about if I give an undertaking to do all these things I have said and sign in from this sole account and I be allowed to continue my good work? You can really see that some of these articles I have spruced up really were poverty stricken before I found them, and all this time I've donated to wikipedia was worth money. JohnWayneCourier (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should log into your original account, and request an unblock there. PhilKnight (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (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.

(ec)What seems to have been your primary account was blocked just over three years ago. You also apparently have used at least eight other accounts; this is the problem you must address, and talking about the merits of your edits is wholly beside the point. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is, I did create this identity for my PC. And then on my laptop, I sign in as Jodyrootes. I don't know why I started doing that. And now that I think of it, there could have been one other account, but the issue may have been I didnt make the alias memorable enough. Anyhow, I propose to use this one exclusively from now on. JohnWayneCourier (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked Jodyrootes. PhilKnight (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From following up on the above admission, it's clear that there has also been a lot of use of logged out editing by this person to avoid their block (including very recently). It is also clear that they have a conflict of interest concerning this topic, including adding material about either themselves or a person they know to articles. I've been removing this material. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

What conflict of interest? I see the Eureka Jack article which was one of wikipedia best efforts has been taken down? This is a bit political isnt it?

JohnWayneCourier (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]