User talk:Joncmaxwell

Welcome!

Hello, Joncmaxwell, 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! —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About listing candidates in the infobox

Thank you for your edits to Texas gubernatorial election, 2014. However, there are established guidelines on which parties to list in the infobox, based on the parties' performance in prior elections. Because the Libertarians received fewer than 2% of the votes in the last election, they are—for Wikipedia purposes—so minor a party that they should not be listed.

This has been discussed at Talk:Texas gubernatorial election, 2014; if you think that any minor-party candidates should be listed, you're free to start discussion there and see if you can get support for the change. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

Your recent editing history at Texas gubernatorial election, 2014 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then 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) 18:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

According to your block message, which administrator placed this block? Bbb23 "Why do you believe you should be unblocked?" My IP address was displayed in an edit as I was not logged in to my account. Joncmaxwell is my one and only account on Wikipedia. The IP address used by account Tomgglass to edit on the Texas gubernatorial election 2014 page, you will find, is far from the location of the IP address of my account Joncmaxwell. How could I possibly know that? Because Todd Glass is Kathie Glass' husband, her campaign manager, who is from Houston... and I am from Plano. "If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?" I intend to monitor the Texas gubernatorial election 2014 page and make appropriate edits if the need arises in order to reflect an accurate account of the election, by following the rules set in place. "Why do you think there is a block currently affecting you? If you believe it's in error, tell us how." I believe the block of my IP address is in retaliation for making what appear to be controversial edits to the Texas gubernatorial election 2014 page by adding the picture of Libertarian Party candidate Kathie Glass to the info-box as she has polled at or above 5% for this election which was the threshold for allowing candidate information in the info-box. The blocking of my IP address "indefinitely" is also against the blocking policy as it is a "punishment" against me for getting into 1 "edit war" in which I was properly warned against after the fact. I refrained from engaging in what is defined as an "edit war" and have been trying to maintain fairness for all legitimate candidates that, according to the Texas Secretary of State, will be on the official election ballot, and this includes Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Kathie Glass. I cannot speak for the under-informed who do are not paying attention to the gubernatorial election in the State of Texas who continue to remove third party candidates from Wikipedia articles. "Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?" I would request a review of the administrators who were instrumental in the blocking of my IP address. I would further request a review of all Election Wikipedia rules regarding candidates and their information allowed in the info-box. It is my personal belief that any legitimate candidate on the official ballot be allowed equal representation in the info-box until after the election has concluded. I do not believe the true motive behind a 5% threshold is to reduce "clutter" but rather to restrict recognition of third parties. I have faith in editors and administrators of Wikipedia to be able to format a page in a way that looks appealing to the eye, while allowing all legitimate candidates equal representation on pre-election Election pages. --Joncmaxwell (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this time, I'm unwilling to grant your request to be unblocked. The checkuser investigation didn't make a conclusive link but did indicate a link. That said, I am willing to continue to discuss the situation with the article with you, and I openly invite you to continue to discuss the article on this talk page. With a longer history of discussion to review and evidence that you understand the policies, guidelines, and generally accepted practices on Wikipedia, I or another administrator may be willing to unblock this account at a later time. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2014 (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.

It's a curious coincidence that this account is requesting to be unblocked at the same time an IP has taken to editing Texas gubernatorial election, 2014.. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This controversy has stirred up a Libertarian Party candidate in a state with one of the highest libertarian populations in the country. It's very likely now this page has gotten a lot of attention. --Joncmaxwell (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, if the editors don't follow guidelines, and/or if they throw accusations of "censoring" around, the article will wind up under a longer term of protection. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new discussion has been started and I would invite your input, C.Fred Talk:Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2014#Exclusionism However due to my current status, I am unable to take part in the discussion.

Alright, I have a couple of questions. C.Fred My biggest question is how can the polls be tracked if 1 poll could have Kathie at 2% and another poll near the same time period could have her at 6%. This is just asking for edit-warring. What polls are accepted, are there any rejected? If someone removes a candidate's information because they cite a poll showing a candidate at 2%, is it ok for someone else to re-add the information if they cite a poll at 5% or higher? What if both polls were taken at the same time and showed different results, as expected? Would a re-add be considered edit-warring resulting in a ban of account or IP address? I feel the "guideline" regarding the 5% rule has a large gray area. Can it be defined anymore than it already is? --Joncmaxwell (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak authoritatively to which polls are accepted and rejected. It would depend on the reliability of the poll-taking organization: some poll-taking organizations have established reputations (Gallup), and some news services that conduct polls have established reputations. I would also say that if two unrelated polling agencies show her at more than 5%, then that's a slam dunk. A single poll showing more than 5%, it's open for discussion.

At any rate, while the 5% threshold is a widely-held guideline, it's still a guideline. Ultimately, it's discussion that builds consensus on what to do with the article. That said, if a hypothetical Dallas newspaper poll projected her to get 10% of the votes, I think I could safely add her to the infobox based on that poll. The problem right now is there hasn't been a recent 5%+ poll, the addition has been contested, and no consensus has emerged on the talk page to support the change. —C.Fred (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred But how recent does it have to be? There's nothing stated that says anything about that. If 2 polls happened at the same time and got different results, one showing 5% and the other showing 2%, 2 editors could have equal reasons for their edit, which is my concern. --Joncmaxwell (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, we do what we always do when there's a difference of opinion: discuss and reach consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred Would it be safe to first go to the talk page of the Texas gubernatorial election 2014 wiki site and place a notification that you will be adding in the image with a citation linking to a current poll that is compliant with the 5% guideline? --Joncmaxwell (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into who CarlJJarvis is, because it seems that a few administrators believe He and I are the same. Carl Jarvis is a political author from Houston. Try carljjarvis.com. I am not Carl Jarvis. Also, it's not uncommon for people to share the same letters in their names. If I wanted I could claim to be a sock puppet of C.Fred based off of the fact that the first initial of my middle name is the same letter as the first initial of C.Fred's name. I really have little belief in the reasons behind my IP being blocked. C.Fred --Joncmaxwell (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Jon, after I finish leaving this message, I'm going to unblock you with a warning that any disruptive editing on your part may be met by blocks. I'm also going to remove the sock puppet tag from your user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate it. I was about to come back and comment that I will concede to the fact that Kathie must get 5% in recent polls, and that when she does, I will add a section on the talk page that provides the explanation and source when I re-add her picture to the infobox. It is fair that she can be, at the very least, mentioned in the body of the page. If Kathie gets 5% on a poll that I cite, re-add her picture to the infobox, and it gets removed when someone challenges the results of that poll, I will defer to you two. Bbb23 C.Fred --Joncmaxwell (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]