User talk:Jsaxton86

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jsaxton86, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- evrik 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Minnesota Republic

Hi. On The Minnesota Republic, please reconsider what should go in an encyclopedia. Listing every punctation error of a minor school newspaper is absurd. Maybe you should take a day off and think about what should go in an encyclopedia and what not. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ruberto - Bear Attack

Just curious - is he a friend that you were trying to play a joke on? Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at List of fatal bear attacks in North America by decade. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsaxton86 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

9,999 hour block re blog entry and generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2008 (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).

Jsaxton86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can say without hyperbole that over 98% of my edits are constructive (see my edit history if you don't believe me). I made two unconstructive edits. This doesn't warrant a 1+ year ban.

Decline reason:

You are correct; it warrants an indefinite ban. In the blog entry linked to above, you write: "For some reason, last April I was reading about fatal bear attacks in North America. For whatever reason, I decided to contribute to the page by asserting that my friend <name redacted> had been horribly mauled to death by a bear. To ensure my edit wasn't reverted, I made up a fake Star Tribune link and used it as a source." This is reflected in this edit: [1]. This is the worst sort of disruption, combining a gross WP:BLP violation with sneaky and difficult-to-spot vandalism. Sandstein 20:08, 15 October 2009 (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.

I've asked the blocking admin for their insight. In the meantime, how do you plan to edit if unblocked? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased the block duration to indefinite for the reason given in the unblock decline above. If necessary, I will log this as a WP:BLPSE action, so please do not unblock this user unless there is sustained community consensus to do so. Sandstein 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would do it - had the blog been configured to permit all browsers to access it, then I would have declined myself. Concur with indef. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]