User talk:John Mayor ERS

What's going on guys, talk with me here.

Block Issue -

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).

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

---

Request reason:

So I am requesting a THIRD time do to me apparently not making my case clear to administrators such as Max Semenik (talk), which I suppose makes sense since they are probably too busy to read the WHOLE talk page as closely as I though they would. So in response THIS TIME I am going to make this request with as much info as I can to move me away from the though that I am this "jakandsig" user, and I will go over each accusation by category, and include my own thoughts and comparisons as well, all in ONE place. Also don't let other users trick you, I made this request following the Guidelines for appealing blocks I don't mind waiting, please admins, take your time. I know you are busy.
EDIT WARRING: :There are multiple people in this talk page claiming there was an edit war. Let me first be very clear that even if there was an edit war, the people saying I was in edit-war are only talking about ONE article, which seems to be the exact opposite of the accounts I am accused of being, and that's easily check-able by clicking on their "contribs' so I think it should end with this right here. But that's not going to work. so I will prove my point below to defend myself. The ONLY links that have been shown to "claim" I was edit warring were from Sergecross73 at the top of the page (and was later copied by an anonymous user). The same Sergecross who said I was "constantly" reverting articles (I have posted in like 7 articles wut?) and changes (Yet I have mostly only made edits in articles that remove information without sources. Only times I made changes to articles was a grand total of 2 TIMES.) both of which he backpedaled from later because he may have realized what he wrote was untrue. :NOW, let's look at what I am accused of, 2 users have used these examples as a way of "proving" I was edit-warring and to quote Sergecross73 exactly, "You broke 3RR at Sega Saturn, with 5 reverts (clear cut, undeniable proof shown above)": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] :Let's look over this argument. First of all the 5th link was in a span of about 4DAYS APART!!! It was also in response to a user who just reverted my previous edit before for no reason other than because he wanted to. Mostly because he, like a few others, were probably quick to assume I was this "jak" so just removed it. I reverted it back. Especially since it was consensus on the talk page as you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Saturn&diff=596436390&oldid=596433879 (scroll down to the bottom of the page, indisputable) :The 4th link, which is practically the ONLY thing anyone can hold on to, was not only about a DAY later, but the edit BEFORE this I had reverted my statement to wait for anyone to come by with any sources first. Then after C.freds edit, I went back to the consensus that is seen CLEARLY on this page, where I also said that I would wait a day before changing based on consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Saturn&diff=596436390&oldid=596433879 (scroll down to the bottom of the page. indisputable) Then you have to realize that no matter what you read or don't read, or what you believe and don't believe, this is the most obivous strawman argument one could have. Even if this was an edit war (although I have just proven that it isn't) it ended way before I was blocked. It also is not comparable to jaks ACTUAL edit-wars, which seem to involve insults and telling people they are idiots. That's not even close to comparable guys, come on! You are comparing me to this?

PLAYSTATION 4 ARTICLE: :The other primary argument against me, and only by one person, Sergecross73, is that I made 3 "sloppy edits" to the Playstation 4 article. I believe he used "3" to make it seem like a "constant" situation, as if I actually edited 3 times to get close to an edit war or something. Oddly, that user completely misses this link every time I show it, and conveniently, so did the 2 admins who denied my last two requests: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_4&diff=597244190&oldid=597243415 :Now looking at this link, you see my second revert. Since the information I was putting in was also in the body of the article of sorts (mark cerny etc.) I figured I did not need to go to the talk page. While Sergecross73 keeps insisting he "told me" to go to the talk page as if I was just reverting edits, he always failed to see his quote here that tells me to "rework" my sentence. Leading to a third revert by me at HIS REQUEST!!!! Even he did not think I had to go to the talk page at first. But argues like he had to tell me as if it was a problem, which it wasn't!
So now that the primary arguments have been discussed, let's move on to the secondary arguments because I want to leave no stone un-turned.

RECENTLY CREATED ACCOUNT: Now this is understandable when you look at the period when I joined. The Investigations page excluding me had 9 different users accused of being this guy. 8 being confirmed. So I understand that people will suspect new accounts. But I am pretty sure there are like 100 new accounts created on wikipedia a day. Not to mention, my Very first edit, was the game I named myself after, and then every edit I made was simple removal of undesirable text that had no substance. But looking at the other users blocked It's not like I jumped into the Dreamcast page and told people to STFU and then made an account and "went back to the Dreamcast page" and the one again, "Going back to the Dreamcast page". While I was a newer account, there is clearly a difference in attitude between me and the "jak" user. In fact, due to the angry writing on my talk page, the users accusing me are actually closer to this guy than I am! (If your technical and reach for the lowest stone. Not saying they are, just saying my attitude is further from him then theirs.) So I think this is an overly poor argument.

THE SAME ARTICLES:
This the last argument that was made. But this should be fairly easy. First of all, originally I did not think this was fair since outside of talk pages, I counted that I have been in only exactly 11 aricles . But then I checked out the "contribs" of each account. Here are all the Contribs of each user including the Investigation page itself: Guardianbot, Friedbandicoot, VirtualRay, Chanmurphy, Jakandsig, TheKingz, The Kings, KombatPolice, VideoGamemuseum. :Now, I looked at all of these. Every, single, one, in pain to prove to you that I have nothing to do with these users. After searching, I found that I only posted in a grand total of 2 of the same articles. 2 out of 11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I add talk pages it's like 2 out of 20. Yet for most of those other accounts, I see around 5+. Including making the same arguments. BOOSH! (quote from Haze video game.) I hope you see that "same articles" is in fact, wrong.
Now I will do a few of my own comparisons.

ANGER: Jak is a very angry man. This may take awhile But here is the Investigation list again. I can pick out at least 2 angry edits from almost each user on that page. GuardianBot: 1 and 2, Virtual Ray: 1 and 2, Jakandsig: 1 and 2, TheKingz/Kings(I assume they are the same): 1 and 2, KombatPolice: 1 and 2, Videomuseum: 1 and 2. :You see this? It's like he's out to kill. You will not find anything like this in any of my edits. :Not to mention, that while I was going through the "contribs" of these users to find these, I noticed that they have posted across many MORE of the same articles than I guessed before. Please click on the "contribs" of each above to see what I mean.
MY CONTRIBUTIONS: I have made multiple contributions, including helping user Red Phoenix, which you can see on his talk page and the Sega Saturn section he made above on my talk page. I assist people, not tell them to STFU like Jak does. I have also been thanked for my contribution on the Nintendo Entertainment System page, and was going to use Red Phoenixs template to improve video game articles. As you know, a lot of them are quite bad. I made mostly edits that remove information, but I also did a little fixing in articles like Body Blows and others to just fix them up. I haven't really made actual noticeable changes in my edits outside of two occurrences, but I believe my contributions so far have helped a few users and have been pretty basic. I would like to try and advance my editing skills further, although I can't do that without being unblocked. I actually am surprised I was blocked at all. I am not sure how I got compared to such an angry user. But I hope I cleared up everything in this painfully long request that took me nearly 2 hours to do. I would like to continue my learning of wikipedia edit tools, so that I can make pages better, like User Red Phoenix above. When you go on his page, he has numerous accomplishments listed on the right side. I would like something like that. I already made the first step by helping him out and learning the templates. I would definitely like to see what I can do, I have valuable references as well, so I know that I could be a big help with fixing up some of the broken game pages, and removing text without sources, and making it into a featured article.

CONCLUSION: I believe I have touched on everything I was accused of that was told to me. So If I am missing something and you don't tell me what it is, it's not in this request. But I tried my best the last 2 hours and 55 minutes to find everything I could to prove I have nothing to do with this "Jak" user, and I hope the next admin who checks this page read what I put in because It took me a very long time. I Hope this request is approved, because I would like to see what I learned from using wikipedias tools and other users, such as red Phoenix above, to improve articles. But, I can't do this without being unblocked. I believe I have made a thorough and convincing (and long) request that will show I am a valuable contributor to wikipedia. John Mayor ERS (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) John Mayor ERS (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Pretty blatant and obvious socking and general time-wasting going on here. Decline, and I would revoke talk page access myself if it weren't already done. only (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Admin note User's talk page access has been revoked for removing and modifying other users comments repeatedly after warnings. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I put a lot of time in this almost 3 hour request. Please post concerns below if there are any. I know you guys are busy so take whatever time you need. John Mayor ERS (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You've basically just accused three different administrators of not taking their role seriously and blundering through a situation that they did not understand (pretty much the exact same charge that KombatPolice levied against the admins that denied his numerous unblock requests). I am not sure how you think that would make other admins sympathetic to your cause. Indrian (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Or how you'd expect anyone to take the time to read all of that mess. Its massive and sprawling! Why would someone submit themselves to all of that? We're all volunteers. We're not paid. You're not anyone's boss they need to report to. You're not a friend they'd feel obligated to help out. You're just a random, irate person on the internet. How do you espect to hold people's attention or keep them motivated to read through all that? Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Unblock requests are generally about making sure that a mistake was not made (example: admin meant to block User A but accidentally blocked User B instead) and that a block was actually based on a valid process (example: Admin blocked User for violating 3RR when a look at the edit history shows the user only reverted an article twice). No one cares to hear excuses for behavior or rants about you have been victimized by "angry" people. All procedures were followed and a valid determination as to your identity was made by an admin based on the available evidence. None of your "evidence" here indicates otherwise. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And, A mistake was made. Also you are completely wrong, even the template for the unblock says I need to prove my case. Have you read the guidelines for appealing a block? Infact, when did you even get in this conversation? You're not an admin and you are only causing me more problems. Here is a quote of the guidelines for you anyway: " You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators- that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)- or- that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead " and here's another one " In complicated situations, the reviewing administrator may not want to spend a long time reading your whole talk page and all of your contributions. Information and evidence not in your unblock request may not be read. " and guess what? I put it all in this request. John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No. A mistaken block would be an admin blocking someone he did not mean to. The admin who blocked you did so because he was convinced by the evidence of a properly conducted SPI. An unblock request is not about spamming your talk page until you find somebody who agrees with you. If you had actually read the guide to appealing blocks as you claim, you would see that reviewing admins generally defer to the original blocking admin in sockpuppetry cases. Therefore, you are unlikely to be unblocked unless you can show an accidental blocking or an invalid application of wikipedia policy. Indrian (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't listen to Indrian (talk) admins. he is trying trick you to make you think I was attacking the last few admins, when I was simply taking what was accused of me and defending myself. Which is also all I have to defend myself with, and defending my self is part of the Wikipedia Guidelines. Here is a quote:"Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block)" John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 msg me, just because YOU won't read it does not mean other admins won't. I have been denied twice, this long post is 100% necessary since my last few were not enough to convince admins before. So I had to make a lengthy request showing clear comparisons between this angry user and myself, showing as much as I can that this guy is the furthest from me as possible. I had no other choice, and other admins will agree that I had no other choice. I am not expecting them to read it all in 5 minutes, but every link I put up there is there to help me and that's all that matters. They can take 2-3 days if that's how long it takes to get people to believe me. Everything I wrote up there shows that the though of me being jak is fiction, and I put in a lot of hard work to make sure that point comes across. Your response also comes a cross as rant.

You also did not read the guidelines. Me putting everything in the request is recommended by the wikipedia guidelines for appealing blocks. Quoting exact words: "In complicated situations, the reviewing administrator may not want to spend a long time reading your whole talk page and all of your contributions. Information and evidence not in your unblock request may not be read." and it IS in my unblock request. Another one: "Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block)" which I also did. John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are the one who did not pay much attention to the guidelines, since they specifically say you should be brief and stay calm. They also say to avoid rants. You are making quite the little scene here, and I guarantee you that is the worst possible way to garner sympathy from an admin. Indrian (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to know what a rant is. What I have above are links by category defending myself, which is in the guidelines I am doubting you read. You seem to think that admins will actually believe the questionable statements coming out of your keyboard. A rant would be what Serge did just a bit above, basically claiming that "admins are volunteers" and "who do you think you are" and "you are irate" that is a rant. You aren't an admin, so if you will be continuing to be a problem instead of just putting in your thoughts about this, I will be removing your comments off my talk page. John Mayor ERS (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guidelines. By all means, you're free to make your unblock requests as long as you want, I'm just talking about basic human psychology and communication. Your massive, 12,000+ character unblock requests are not conducive to holding a person's interest. (They're also probably going to be confused as to why the page is all out of order, and your two prior rejected unblock requests are below this one, not above it.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Also I did see your comment that was removed Indrian (talk), first of all , you may want to familiarize with the whole page under the Guidelines for appealing blocks, and see that, as I quoted and linked above, followed the guideline accurately. You are saying basically that what I am reading on the page is wrong. Which make no sense. I think it's obvious at this point you guys keep coming on here as a distraction and for some reason I keep falling for it, but from now on, I'll probably just remove any more distracting attempts, or only respond when there is an actual point made. If O keep responding to the obvious bait this will could be an issue for my potential unblocking. John Mayor ERS (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The comment you removed, I think you mean. An admin has since restored it on the grounds that it is improper to tamper with the comments of other users in an unblock request situation such as this. Anyway, all I have pointed out is that you are taking a path that will unlikely win you any friends here. Instead of heeding both mine and Serge's helpful advice, you have responded with rants and personal attacks That is your prerogative, and I will certainly not lose any sleep over it, but I am having trouble understanding how you think the course of action you are taking here will convince an admin you should be unblocked. A little politeness and humility goes a long way. Indrian (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Indrian (talk) Are you really going to sit here and lie by claiming I am making rants and personal attacks? I think it would be best if you stop posting. Because despite what Ohnojamie, said, you are not an admin, and I can remove your comments as that is my right according to the guidelines. I personally don't feel like dealing with you any longer since now you are adding more text that is distracting then actually pointing out anything. What Serge did above is a rant, quote:" You're not anyone's boss they need to report to. You're not a friend they'd feel obligated to help out. You're just a random, irate person on the internet. How do you espect to hold people's attention or keep them motivated to read through all that? ". Nothing I have done qualifies. In fact, an example of a personal attack, is also what Serge did above, quote, " You're just a random, irate person on the internet ". If you are going to sit here accusing me of things I have not done, you aren't doing yourself any favors. I also believe that admins will actually read the whole conversations at this point, or at least the request page, so I don't think your distractions will work. You've already intentionally misquoted me a few times abovea and twisted words, if it hasn't worked now I have no idea why you are still trying. EDIT: Also a kind friendly warning, you are already beyond breaking the 3RR rule in terms of doing any more edits on this talk page, especially since you're conducting vandalism via making up claims of personal attacks and rants. Please stop. I have done nothing to you and don't appreciate what you are doing. John Mayor ERS (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So now we are moving on to threats? No one is escalating the situation here except you. Long rants, personal attacks, removal of comments by other users, the list goes on. Contrition is usually the best course when looking to be unblocked. If Serge and I are acting as poorly as you claim, I am sure sn admin will call us out for it; they do not need your help. By taking the offensive in this manner, you pretty much lose any chance of sympathy from someone who reads this. Take a deep breath, calm down, and let the appeals process run its course. That honestly is just some friendly advice. Indrian (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So accidental removals from editing on top of each other (I have not actually removed a post yet) somehow equals your made up claims of personal attacks and rants? Indrian (talk), Your whole response here is a rant, complete with quick replies, errors, and desperate attempts to distract admins. I have nothing more to say to you, every thing you just said is a lie and I am not messing with you anymore because I am not messing up my chance to get unblocked. People who read are going to notice that you just made up 2 things before, Personal attacks (where?), and ranting (which is what you have been doing) and now a third, threats (where?), do you know what a threat is? I am not going to argue with you just because you are acting like an 8 year old child by continuing to yammer the same thing over and over again to attract attention. No matter what you post I will not be responding to. You have issues, and you may want to work on them without getting all emotional on my talk page. Your random appearance in this talk page not long ago, along with your recent lies is totally strange and anyone would take notice and ask "why did he randomly come out the blue?". What's next? Your going to edit your talk page then lie and say I sent you a death message? What is your problem dude? I don't know what it is but you will not be posting on this talk page unless you are an admin, as I am allowed to do according to the guidelines. Especially since you are now indisputably committing vandalism. EDIT: Now this one could almost call a rant, but I am responding to a user who vandalizes so this shouldn't count. John Mayor ERS (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie

^Talk You have ben caught red handed.. You edited this in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KombatPolice&diff=prev&oldid=597445220 He didn't make that, so even though I proved that wrong you never had anything in the first place. You pretended he made that to make a poor argument against me! You think I wouldn't catch that? Sad. I already have enough here already for you and Serge in the "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" but this is just some icing. Once this is over I will submit most of this talk page over. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is every instance of you removing talk page comments (now with one more than before since you removed this post). This can only be done purposely, for if the page changes while you are editing, you will get an edit conflict notice. I will not take the time to go over all the ironies in your above two posts, but I will point out the obvious that the only posts on this page that are emotional appear to be yours. Indrian (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary to your last unblock request (as KombatPolice), I simply added a header so that I could use the # notation to link directly to the request so anyone interested in reading it could avoid all of the other boring crap on that talk page. Edit history is plain site to anyone; it's silly to think that I was "pretending" anything. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Except that is not my account, and no, you pushed it as a failed attempt to try and say that I was similar to that account. You clearly pretended that. Please stop with the vandalism. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Indrians edits are not vandalism. You should probably brush up on your vocab. Just because you don't like or agree with it, doesn't mean its vandalism. You are wrong in your interpretation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Except it is via the guidelines. nothing but false accustations and spamming the same thing over and over and is not an admin. I already messed up enough times talking to you people. I am not falling for any more of your traps. I am going by the rules that are written. All further vandalism will be removed. Actually no, I will move all this distracting wall of text so the admins will not have to deal with it. I will not blow off my only chance to even use wikipedia because of you people who clearly have rage for the "jak user, and are taking it all out on me. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)}}

Separator line

Will put in a few of this to make page more organized. John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Separator line

Will put in a few of this to make page more organized. John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Separator line

Will put in a few of this to make page more organized. John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in an edit war

Your recent editing history at Sega Saturn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

John Mayor ERS, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi John Mayor ERS! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice

For your attention.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I am supposed to put this here.

Unblock template

Actually my block may or may not be more related to that Jakandsig investigation according to my notifications. Considering the amount of names on that page that are confirmed, I see why wiki automatically blocks web host providers. Maybe it just took awhile for it to notice mine. Hopefully I can get mine on the approved list. John Mayor ERS (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't unblock your IP address unless you tell us what IP address it is, so please do that. (Also, have a look at the notice that you see when you try to edit: it may tell you to use a different unblock request template than the one you have used, which is only for requesting an unblock of a block directly applied to this account.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Ip is 91.103.216.0/24, or 91.103.216.201 (I am getting different numbers here and on another site) JamesBWatson"JamesBWatson". John Mayor ERS (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that information. I have contacted the blocking administrator and asked him to look at this. (By the way, if it's of any interest, 91.103.216.201 will be your particular IP address, and 91.103.216.0/24 is a range of IP addresses. In fact, "91.103.216.0/24" is a shorthand for "all IP addresses in the range 91.103.216.0 to 91.103.216.255".) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the news "JamesBWatson" (talk)?John Mayor ERS (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Please rather than continually reverting other editors, please discuss on the talk page, find consensus, and then take action. Please follow WP:BRD. (I'm referring to your edits at Sega Saturn.) Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, uh, there is a talk page in the Saturn page. Please stop by. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I see you've been warned about this before above too. You will be blocked if you keep removing large amounts of information like this without discussing and coming to consensus. Please stop. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you realize that reverting 2 times is not a problem. Also what does a small one sentence edit in the Playstation 4 article have to do with reverting large amounts of information? John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As I already said, I'm talking about your edits at Sega Saturn, where you have already removed the same information 5 times now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting 5 from, but after the first few I made a talk page section and reached a consensus. Not to mention those older edits were days ago. BTW, Did you check the talk page or did you assume that I didn't go there? I mean after that last situation it is understandable to be cautious, but it's been a week since then. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I did look at it. As far as I could tell, it looked like there was one editor who supported "gutting the article" when he would start cleaning it up (though not necessarily your edits) and one who was against your edits. That's hardly a consensus as far as Wikipedia defines it. And yes, I did see that you stopped for a few days, but you were also blocked for a few days, so it looks like you pretty much just picked up from where you left off.

If you don't see 5, I'm guessing you didn't look at my link very hard? Here they literally are: One, Two, Three, Four and Five. You are lucky, in fact, because if an Admin had noticed that the first 4 were in 24 hours, they would have blocked you for breaking WP:3RR. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not blocked, I had an issue accessing wikipedia because of a automatic Web Host block on one device. In fact, right now I am not even using that device, but from the looks of the edit on this page, the block may have finally been removed. You also seem to be a bit jumpy looking at your contribs, so I think I am going to wait for you to settle a bit before I do anything else. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, the point was, it seemed like you only stopped because you were forced to (the indirect block), not of your own will. Not sure what you mean by the last part of your message, but regardless, keep to discussing your various issues on the article's talk pages. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I was font color="teal">msg menot posting before with my primary device as I said above, so no, I was waiting for the other issue to cool off first, sadly it seems like that has not happened yet. Also, I looked and no I did not violate the 3RR rule in the Sega Saturn section. I held my edit until people found no sources as I said in the talk page, and changed it back when they did not. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} also supported stripping the article further and we were working together on it. He is working on it now as we speak. John Mayor ERS (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn sources

Hi, John. I've got the Sega Saturn page watch listed, and as you've seen from the talk page, I'm looking at a restructure. It was, honestly, a page I've been wanting to fix up for a while but have had other projects I'm getting done first. I don't mind the info strip going on, and I don't particularly want to get in between whatever's going on between you and Mr. Gonna and TheTimesAreAChanging, but would you be willing to do me a favor? I can see in the last diff where info was changed that some sources were removed as well, GameFAQs I have no problem with being purged, but would you be willing to save the rest and post them on the talk page for review? I would be particularly interested in the application of the Business Wire based sources, but any other possible reliable sources would also be worth keeping in case valuable and reliable information can be salvaged. Whenever I approach an article rewrite, I tend to try and use anything reliable that may be left behind, as it saves work and may provide something that would otherwise be missing. Thank you, Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah ok. Sending it over now. John Mayor ERS (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} looks like things are going well. Surprised no one minds yet. Looking good. John Mayor ERS (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Sega articles, yo User:Indrian did you find that Colecovision-Master System article yet? John Mayor ERS (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Block Issue

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).

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

---

Request reason:

A bit confused, but apparently "JamesBWatson" (talk) blocked this account? Although I though that in the above section we kind of already went over this "JamesBWatson" (talk)? I am actually not sure what to say. Did you just block my account because I was on the previous list? I mean it doesn't make sense to me unless you think I have been disruptive. Butttttt I don't believe that has happened or anything. Last I was on I was learning about talk pages more, in fact, I was in the middle of helping Red Phoenix on his talk page with an article he was going to fix. In fact, he taught me the layout necessary for improving articles. I was actually about to improve my first article as well instead of minor edits, with his help. Check out the conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red_Phoenix I am not sure why I was blocked all of a sudden out the blue right now. I though that other SP issue was over by now. (Also there seems to be an issue with my paragraphs being jumbled in preview mode, not sure how it will turn out when I submit this.) John Mayor ERS (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Recently created account, starts edit-warring on the same articles by recently blocked socks; same argumentative wikilawyering. I doesn't quack much louder than this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

You were blocked because the WP:SPI investigation, and several users, believe that you're a sock puppet of a currently blocked user. (User:TheKingsTable, User:Jakandsig, etc) I believe this to be true myself.(and even if by some chance its not true, you still exemplify all the negative traits that got him blocked - constant reverting/edit warring, instead of discussing and waiting for consensus, making a lot of awkward changes to article that introduce factual errors or typos, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 msg me, I am afraid that your insistence of me constantly reverting and other odd claims are untrue and very confusing. I have barely posted in any articles in terms of editing. I only had one chance of almost getting into an edit war, and that was above at the top of the page. We later fixed that in the talk page DAYS ago. That was the Sega Saturn page, where another user is currently right now, editing it, stripping it the same as I did, from what I did, and fixing it up. I even assisted him, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red_Phoenix

You've also shown before that you are too jumpy, and have not checked if there was a talk page made in the past and assumed I did not make one because you believed I was this guy from the start, which also was the Sega Saturn article. Once you did see the talk page, your excuse was that one was for it and one was against it, when the one you said was against it put "I hope anyone interested in improving this article would find reliable sources for everything John Mayor ERS removed" so this just makes what you're saying even more confusing. See our conversation above.

I have only attempted to make impact-full changes to an article, instead of remove information that has no source, a grand total of 2 times out of a grand total of about 7 articles edited, not including talk pages: the Playstation 4 article and the Nintendo Entertainment System article, and both of those were around one sentence, and both were solved in the talk page. Otherwise, every other edit I have made has just been removing text without source or tagging with CN's. So your claims of me changing articles or reverting etc, are confusing and it does not make any sense to me. I have no idea what you are looking at or what you are comparing. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I provided direct links above on how you reverted the same info 5 separate times at the Sega Saturn article. You tried adding sloppy info into the ps4 article 3 separate times. (I can provide links but its pretty clearly in the edit history.) Maybe that doesn't meet your criteria for "constant", but it does for me. However you label it, you're not adhering to WP:BRD or able to interpret a consensus in a discussion when you actually do bother to initiate it. Your failure to adhere to policy, and constant denial that you're doing it, are the same as the person you're accused of being a sock puppet of... Sergecross73 msg me 17:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, your accusation that I didn't see the discussion on the talk page at Sega Saturn is false. I did see it before hand. The problem was that there was no clear consensus on what to do there. There weren't, for example, five unanswered editors saying "Yes, I support John Mayors edits". There were 2 people there. One said "I'm going to clean up the article later" and another who didn't approve of your removal. It in no way showed a support for your edits, which is why I said above, you don't seem to fully grasp how consensus is defined or determined in Wikipedia, and you're very quick to just go off reverting again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC))

Sergecross73 msg me, I have no idea what your intentions are at this point. After C.freds edit, I went with the consensus in the Sega Saturn talk page. You are now dodging what I mentioned above. The Consensus on the talk page was before C.freds edit, and originally it was going to stay with my revised edit but I REVERTED my edit back to make it easier for those who may come by with sources for the information I deleted. I wanted to wait around a day to see if anybody did before I went with my original edit. Seems you missed it, here it is for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Saturn&diff=596433090&oldid=596432543 and in the talk page this is even clearer. Oh and yes, you DID not see the talk page, or at the very least, The whole talk page, because the other user, at the time before C.freds edit, only had THIS STATEMENT on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Saturn&diff=596432851&oldid=596432818 and the very next edit from another user was Red Phoenix.

Again you have shown to be jumpy numerous times. It was understandable the first few times, but at this point it doesn't make sense. The PS4 article was ONE sentence, and it was dealt with in the talk page, but also was originally in the body (but with different wording) so I did not think I needed to go to the Talkpage for it when I fist put it in. In fact, neither did you, The 3rd edit I made on the Playstation 4 page was in response to YOU telling ME to REWORK the sentence I put in. Not to mention you are an admin, so the average person would have though that the post would be an exemption of the 3RR. Here it is, because I am thinking you may have forgotten: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_4&diff=597244190&oldid=597243415

Again, a grand total of 7 articles I have been apart of that are not talk pages, 2, count them, 2 I actually tried to change words in an impact-full way on the page instead of basic removal of info without sources to sustain it, or tagging with . Both were solved in the talk page, one of which, according to the conversation we had above, you did not see the talk page because you assumed I didn't go there because again, you are jumpy and were quick to assume since the very first time you saw my account, (EDIT: Or from what you are saying, you DID see the talk page, but then why would you tell me to go to the talk page then? Why did you miss the links I posted above in this response?) which was understandable when I first joined but is completely confusing now. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment of "go to the talk page" was because there wasn't a clear consensus on the talk page yet. It was saying "keep discussing, because so far, there isn't a consensus for a resolution yet". But regardless, while you edits are bad, the main reason you were blocked was because you're editing from the same source as the aforementioned people who were already blocked, and making the same type of edits. We believe you are TheKingsTable and Jak. And as such, you're blocked for block evasion. Anyways, I'm done with this now. You're going to need to convince a different Admin to repeal this block. I'm convinced it is a legit block. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 msg meI like how you leave with a vague statement without identifying which article you are talking about and dodging all the points I made above. I like that same source dodge to, If it was the same source I would have been confirmed the first time surely not? Actually, it's clear you are mentioning the Playstation 4 page, since you mentioned "your comment" which would mean this:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_4&diff=597244190&oldid=597243415 which has NOTHING you just said and actually proves my above claim to be correct. I knew there was a reason you took so long to reply back, you are just going to ignore everything I said above aren't you? Is this because you didn't look carefully? I don't want to say that you are a well............................. I am just saying that you clearly are dodging all the points above intentionally. Ohhh boyyyy, now I have to wait longer. John Mayor ERS (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you've lost me completely as to what you're getting at, but regardless, none of it changes the core issues of why you were blocked:

1. The SPI results show your edits from the same area as your accused sock puppets, and many other editors beyond myself have noted the obvious similarities in your behavior.
2. You broke 3RR at Sega Saturn, with 5 reverts (clear cut, undeniable proof shown above).
3. At PS4, you re-added sloppy information 3 times, while alluding to a consensus that didn't exist.

As I said, 2 and 3 are especially troublesome because that's the same sort of thing as the accused sock puppet. Whatever you're going on about...doesn't change any of that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy.

1. I have no idea what this means. If you mean same address that's impossible because I was not confirmed the first time, and while shared, I doubt my web host has been used, even so that means nothing. If otherwise, I have no idea what you are saying. Also I don't by "many other editors" regarding me myself, ihave dealt with you and only two others in regards to assuming I was this guy.
2. Actually no, there isn't. Because as I said, you dodged the fact that the 4th revert was by consensus. If I had not reverted my old edit, the Saturn page before Red Phoenixs edits would look the same as I had it before with all my edits in tact. When will you stop avoiding where you are wrong and address it? Again, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega_Saturn&diff=596433090&oldid=596432543 (clear cut undeniable proof above.) Talk page cements this further
3. And no, I did not make 3 "sloppy re-adds" on the Playstation 4 page. Because the 3rd revision was in response to you, remember how you keep forgetting this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_4&diff=597244190&oldid=597243415 why do you pretend this didn't happen?

Sergecross73 msg me, you are now bordering on making things up. Every time you're proven wrong, you pretend you are not, and continue to pretend problems exist where they don't. I have no idea what you are trying to do, every concern you have had has been proven wrong by actual links leading to the opposite, you keep backpedaling every other post. Including posts by YOU YOURSELF. You already backpedaled your constant reverts and changes claim. What more do I have to show to you that your points are wrong? John Mayor ERS (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope all future administrators read the above carefully and see that this man has been running/ignoring away from all counter arguments that proves his point wrong. John Mayor ERS (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• If this is not an edit war: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] then I don't know what an edit war would look like. And you don't need to come up with such irrelevant remarks as "the 4th revert was by consensus". Repeating the same edit several times when others have reverted it is an edit war. 80.168.237.218 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect random anonymous user 80.168.237.218 (talk). Look at your 5th link and look at the dates at the top. Seems that the difference between them was about 4 DAYS. You also need to realize that the 4th edit is VERY relevant. Because your 4th link was my THIRD Revert, and that's when I was given the above warning at the top of the page. The 4th edit was me "reverting" my own edit (despite the consensus) and that is considered an exemption in the 3RR guide. John Mayor ERS (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think that pointing out the dates of the edits is relevant, but I can only guess that you are one of the surprisingly many editors who somehow get the idea that an edit war doesn't count as an edit war if it avoids breaching the so-called "three revert rule", despite the fact that the edit warring policy very emphatically states that that is not so. You do not explain why you think that the fourth link was your third revert, but once again working on the basis of past experience of the various ways that edit-warring editors manage to misinterpret the edit warring policy, my guess is that you think that undoing someone else's edit somehow doesn't count as reverting if it's the first time you have done so. The edit shown in the first of those links undoes the effect of one or more previous edits by other editors: that is to say it reverts another editor's editing. That is what a "revert" means. It is true that between two of the edits that are listed you reverted one of your own reverts, which means that there are effectively only four reverts there, rather than the five which there appear to be, but in no way does that negate the simple fact that you several times removed the same content that had been placed there by one or more other editors. That is what "edit warring" means. It really is that simple. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you are missing the fact that his number 5 reasons was well, 4 DAYS later, and the one before that was well, CONSENSUS. Not to mention his 5th edit was me reverting someone who reverted my last edit just because he wanted to so uhh... hmm....John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Block Issue +

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).

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

---

Request reason:

EDIT:Admins, See the defense notes section below. I am making another request because of OhNoitsJamie denying my previous one. It's hard to defend myself when nothing is shown and you leave a vague response, but from what I can pick up, the reason for the denial by OhNoitsJamie is completely untrue. First of all "recently created" account is not an argument, if I am not mistaken (I could be wrong) most of the users on that investigations list were recently created. It is most likely THE reason why Sergecross73 msg me was jumpy when I first joined. As for edit-warring, as you can clearly see that NEVER happened, whether you look at the links I posted in the above conversation or if you look and see I only have one WARNING for it a the top of this talk page. This also applies to edit-warring the "same" articles, the "same" being incredibly vague. If you mean just being in the same articles, I can easily go to the "contribs" on every one in that investigations list, doing so proves this is also untrue and does not exist. He showed nothing to back-up his points, he just said it out the blue and denied my request. None of what he said actually happened or exists. None of it. On that note, what is "wikilawyering" is that defending myself? You mean that action this very template I am using is telling me to do? Why did you just drop a sentence with nothing to show for what your wrote and leave? No person could pick where to start from that alone to defend their self, I could only make out 2 areas you are accusing me of, Edit-warring and same articles, which both never happened. In fact, I have only been in about 7 articles outside of talk pages the whole time, so it's easy for me to check on that. I am still not sure why recently created account is an actual reason as well. Making the "quack" statement invalid. Too many unanswered questions with the above denial, and I am sure someone else will agree since that denial was as invisible as a ghost.

EDIT: I would also like to add an anonymous user above tried making the same statements above as Serge, and I have given detail again on why there was not an edit war at all, anywhere, at anytime. Again, only got a warning. I would like to continue to stress this fact since 2 admins have said this already. I want it to be clear that it does not exist.

Below this I will post my original request again along with this one, as I think it touches on some points.

A bit confused, but apparently "JamesBWatson" (talk) blocked this account? Although I though that in the above section we kind of already went over this "JamesBWatson" (talk)? I am actually not sure what to say. Did you just block my account because I was on the previous list? I mean it doesn't make sense to me unless you think I have been disruptive. Butttttt I don't believe that has happened or anything. Last I was on I was learning about talk pages more, in fact, I was in the middle of helping Italic textRed Phoenix on his talk page with an article he was going to fix. In fact, he taught me the layout necessary for improving articles. I was actually about to improve my first article as well instead of minor edits, with his help. Check out the conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red_Phoenix I am not sure why I was blocked all of a sudden out the blue right now. I though that other SP issue was over by now. (Also there seems to be an issue with my paragraphs being jumbled in preview mode, not sure how it will turn out when I submit this.) John Mayor ERS (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Lots of arguments, lots of false claims (e.g. that you haven't edit-wared). Still not believable. Your requests and related discussions are quite lengthy so I have to warn you that if your next unblock request will not be concise and up-to-the-point, you will lose your privilege to edit this page. Max Semenik (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Wow, I'm experiencing deja vu...oh,#126; it was this block request that made your most recent one seem so familiar. The quacking is deafening. Sooner or later you'll figure out that we're just going to reblock you every time you create a new account and return to your old habits. Stop wasting your time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that users block requests are completely unrelated. I noticed you failed to see my "linked proof" showing every single thing you wrote in the last denial was completely wrong? Even before you posted that comment? What about the whole dropping one sentence and leaving so I barely have anything to defend myself with? What about this comment I am responding to now? Your attempt at comparing me to kombat seems rushed in anger. Is your only argument that he (eventually) made a new section for unblock requests? Did you not notice I separated the first one and he did not? This is what you call proof? I don't understand why you came here if you have anger problems with the jak user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk I notice you have a very bad attitude from both this and your denial comment. Not sure what your deal is buddy, but I think you got the wrong guy to be mad at. I have this strange feeling this rage is the reason you denied my request with such a ghost answer. However, I don't have anything to do with why you are angry and I did nothing wrong. I have proven that so many times now it's gotten obvious. Or at least I hope it is because it seems like it. John Mayor ERS (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you think I would be experiencing rage right now. A little weariness maybe. We see this kind of wikilawyering denial from socks all the time, so it's old hat. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Your above comments are written in a way an angry user would write it. Especially the short comment you left in the last denial leaving me little to defend myself with which is what I am supposed to do. Despite the links I have showing the exact opposite of what you were saying before, and the fact you apparently believe there was a non-existent edit war. Then there's the equally questionable claim of "same articles" which also does not exist. You also seem to be angry in the very first comment under this request: "The quacking is deafening. Sooner or later you'll figure out that we're just going to reblock you every time you create a new account and return to your old habits. Stop wasting your time." that is angry writing, and untrue. John Mayor ERS (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the "we're going to reblock you every time" is pretty true. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

IF I was that user. Which is not true. You've already done a good job giving me little to work with to defend myself. But despite this I have linked proof in the multiple conversations in this talk page that proved everything you (and Serge) said so far wrong. Sadly, that's all I have but I believe it's enough for the average admin who is a bit less angry to look through and see I have nothing to do with this, and that your denial is vague and does not make any sense. Unless you want to clarify now, that would help. Edit: Look at this, User Smuckola just now thanked me for my contribution in the Nintendo Entertainment System article. John Mayor ERS (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Good for him. But that doesn't change any of the concerns of block evasion or disruptive editing against you. (Nor will any of these massive tirades.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 msg me your oddly sudden post makes it seem like that thanked comment is worrying you or something. Also massive what? Are you talking about that area above where you backpedaled and dodged points, then posted your concerns, and I posted links leading to the exact opposite of your concerns? There are no concerns (that you introduced) left to even talk about. You backed off your own "constant" claims, there was no edit war (that anonymous account who agreed with you posted the same 4 day difference in between edits) and you also seemed to forget that you told me to rework a PS4 edit and have continued to pretend that never happened. Please provide any additional concerns you have so I can go over it and make my defense, and this decision to unblock me, easier. I would appreciate it. EDIT: Also where are these disruptive edits, or are the only ones you are talking about the ones that were cut in half above and don't exist in the way you present them? (example: what edit war?)John Mayor ERS (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why would I be worried? That's about as silly as claiming Jamie was angry. Please stop trying to troll us, or you're likely to lose talk page access as well. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not trolling anyone, you said last time was your last response and you come in here again not explaining anything and ONLY to address the fact I mentioned that someone thanked me for my contribution. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Defense Notes

Please Notice: Below is the summary of accusations against this account hat have been throughly vaporized, please view the evidence below in order from top to bottom:

Number 1: Sergecross73 accused me of "constant reverting and edit-warring and akward changes" After addressing his odd concerns, he back-pedaled and tried focusing on "number" of edits, and a lack of consensus on the Sega Saturn page.

Number 2: Sergecross73 accused me of not reaching consensus on the talk page claiming one user was ok with it and one was not. When as proven above, both users were ok with it. I also addressed his 3 "reverts" on the Playstation 4 page with a link showing that I edited a 3rd time in response to HIS(admin) request to rework my previous edit. That link, again, is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_4&diff=597244190&oldid=597243415

Number 3: Sergecross73 then posts a comment about his "comment" being made because there was no consensus in terms of my 3rd revert in the Playstation 4 page. As he said before, he claimed above I had made 3 "sloppy" reverts. Yet he once again pretend the link posted in #2 does not exist. the rest of his response is vague and he does not address anything else I said in defense of myself.

Number 4: Sergecross73 swings away from what I mentioned as I just said, and numerically put down a claim of "being from the same area" which tells me nothing. His second point was I made 5 reverts and broke 3RR. When I did not. His 3rd point was a consensus for the PS4, which I actually did not mention in my last few responses. With those I was speaking of the Sega Saturn thread.

Number 5: Anonymous user 80.168.237.218 used the exact same argument that Sergecross used way at the top of this talk page under Feb 2014. Where he posted links claiming that I had an edit war on the Sega Saturn page and I broke 3RR. Introducing that same link that shows a 4 day difference again for the second time, proving that I did not break 3RR. I also mentioned my 4th revert was "myself" which is protected under the 3RR act.

Number 6: User OhNoitsJamie ^Talk denied my above request angrily, postie the layout necessary for improving articles. I was actually about to improve my first article as well instead of minor edits, with his help. Check out the conversation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Red_Phoenix I am not sure why I was blocked all of a sudden out the blue right now. I though that other SP issue was over by now. (Also there seems to be an issue with my paragraphs being jumbled in preview mode, not sure how it will turn out when I submit this.) John Mayor ERS (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

|decline=Lots of arguments, lots of false claims (e.g. that you haven't edit-wared). Still not believable. Your requests and related discussions are quite lengthy so I have to warn you that if your next unblock request will not be concise and up-to-the-point, you will lose your privilege to edit this page. Max Semenik (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC) }}

Wow, I'm experiencing deja vu...oh,#126; it was this block request that made your most recent one seem so familiar. The quacking is deafening. Sooner or later you'll figure out that we're just going to reblock you every time you create a new account and return to your old habits. Stop wasting your time. ng the reason was for editing the same articles and edit warring pages. Yet the was no edit war to speak of once, let alone multiple times through multiple articles. The investigations page also shows no such use of me visiting the same pages either. I have only be apart of around 7 articles excluding talk pages my whole time here as well.

Number 7: I make another request and OhNoitsJamie ^Talk makes a very poor comparison to user Kombatpolice ONLY because I made a new section to separate the block discussions from the rest of the talk page. However, I also did that the first time, and it was a pretty strange move in general. It was not "proof" of anything and he was wrong regardless. After this he makes a very angry post showing that he has issues with the Kombatpolice user and is putting it out on me. I had told him that I am not the guy to be mad at.

'diff=597302569/b> 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

IF I was that user. Which is not true. You've already done a good job giving me little to work with to defend myself. But despite this I have linked proof in the multiple conversations in this talk page that proved everything you (and Serge) said so far wrong. Sadly, that's all I have but I believe it's enough for the average admin who is a bit less angry to look through and see I have nothing to do with this, and that your denial is vague and does not make any sense. Unless you want to clarify now, that would help. Edit: Look at this, User Smuckola just now thanked me for my contribution in the Nintendo Entertainment System article. John Mayor ERS (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Good for him. But that doesn't change any of the concerns of block evasion or disruptive editing against you. (Nor will any of these massive tirades.) [[User:Sergecross73|'Number 8: OhNoitsJamie ^Talk denied the rage despite the typing from before seeming to conflict with that. I tell him that what he wrote above also is not true due to checking posts and the links I posted before.

Number 9: OhNoitsJamie ^Talk decides to make a sarcastic comment. I try to calmly address this. During my response I get a notification from a user thanking me for my contribution to the Nintendo Entertainment System article, and add that to my response.

Number 10: Sergecross73 after leaving suddenly comes back specifically to address that thanked comment which using sarcasm and saying it won't help me. Raising all kinds of red flags. I responded to him reminded him of the points that he was avoiding before, and it almost seemed intentional.

Number 11: Sergecross73 says that I am trolling him even though he is the one who is currently avoiding everything I have shown that clearly shows my case. He also does not address the fact that his last edit before coming back was his "last response" looking at the page history, and came back exclusively because of my comment that a user thanked me. I will respond with the fact that he came back only after I posted that thanked comment information. John Mayor ERS (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

-CURRENT-

• Has it ever occurred to you to actually make sure you know what people have written before contradicting what you think they have said? You repeatedly appear to think that you have refuted what other editors have said, but in fact you have merely refuted straw-man arguments of your own invention, which have never been advanced by those other editors. To give just one example, in your statement above beginning "Anonymous user 80.168.237.218 used the exact same argument..." you said "... claiming that I had an edit war on the Sega Saturn page and I broke 3RR..." (My emphasis.) In fact, in the message signed 80.168.237.218, there is no mention whatever of the "three revert rule". In other ways, too, you give accounts of what you claim other editors have said or done which simply do not fit what I can see that they have said or done, looking at their edits. I was going to give more examples, but looking back over your history it is clear that whatever you are told, if it doesn't fit in with what you have decided you are going to believe then you just play I didn't hear that, so it would be a waste of my time. Really, if you want to waste your own time by writing great long refutations of arguments which have never been advanced by anyone other than yourself, and denouncements of editors for saying things that they never said, then that is up to you, but if you continue to waste the time of other people by posting them on Wikipedia talk pages and demanding that administrators answer you, then you can expect to access removed from any talk page you use. I see that you have already had talk page access removed from one account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"JamesBWatson" (talk) This is the only account I have, if you want to come in here with made up claims and to make a long angry rant, then it might be better you DON'T post on the page because your judgement is clearly clouded. Just some advice for you. Allso you may want to take that attitude with you please. Now I am going to make this really clear in the next one since the lot of you admins apparently aren't even trying to look through what I posted. John Mayor ERS (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

font color="#D47C14">itsJamie