User talk:Jvmphoto

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read section on autobiographies of living persons "It is extremely stupid to interfere with the subject of an article correcting information" Not writing an article, adding a photo and correcting missing personal information. Almost done, then someone else can review. thanks.

Done now. Thanks

It's also extremely stupid to give the appearance of quoting a line from a guideline when that line doesn't exist. 98.248.33.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Used to exist, quote from Jimbo Wales, like everything else on wikipedia, a "contract of adhesion" and gets changed anytime someone wants. People have been asking for a photo for a long time, now you have one and correct biographical information. Jvmphoto (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of this account requested

I filed a request to block this account at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jvmphoto. --MediaMangler (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should block you and your sick stalker friends MediaMangler. You are an immature little troll and child. Jvmphoto (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff V. Merkey

What sourced content did you add? Everything you added was unsourced. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should almost never have galleries. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently cant read. Please let people see all sides of me, not just the one sided view of the Yahoo SCOX Trolls and Merkey-haters who caused such distress. That article is excellent now. with some awesome images and the side of me few people see. It's sourced and accurate. For once, will you guys try to be my friends. THANKS PLEASE. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right, I did miss some, but please don't insult me. Where are the sources for your DOB though? I can't find any. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest policy

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

While I appreciate your situation, I think it would be better to focus most of your energy discussing the disputed material. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Jeff V. Merkey and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know a fellow soldier from the army of the UK will shoot a solder of the US army in the back. :) Just kidding. Just remember, THE US ARMY KICKED YOU REDCOATS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY BEFORE. :) Love You Chase me ladies ... Your friend. Jeff Jvmphoto (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the Army. I will, however, remind you that you enlisted the help of two authoritarian empires. As for shooting allies in the back, that's something that happens on both sides. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Per Biographies of Living Persons, the subject of an article is permitted to correct erroneous information and assist in providing sources. I was not banned at this time nor am I banned presently. The current "Community Banning" was not authorized by the Arbcom and is improper in any event. I have never done anything except improve this project. It's wrong and extremely unfair to ban someone at the behest of a group of vicious trolls. Per Biographies of Living persons, I should be allowed to work with other editors. And to be honest, I have a lot to offer the wikipedia project and its not very fair that I was banned based upon the actions of a group of vicious trolls and their campaign of personal hatred against me. Think about it. You guys can keep running wikipedia like a troll mill and caving into various groups, but you will end up excluding someone of value. I can and still have an account on the Cherokee wikipedia, and I can edit there, but I AM NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE until I see some degree of fairness on the English Wikipedia. If you want me to respond well to you, then show me the respect I have earned in my life. Respect me, and I respect you.

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is creating a second account to avoid the block on User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. If you have fully solved the problems that led to the block on that account, you are welcome to request the unblocking of your primary account. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 19 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.

And what exactly are the steps to resolve the block on the first account, another $5,000 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, or do I have to go before a committee of 20 year olds again? Is there a grownup around here I can talk too perhaps, or someone who can at least act like an adult? As it stands, you allow someone who has been ORDERED by a Court to stay off Wikipedia to edit and then block the victim of his actions. So what have I missed? At what point does this get adressed. Do I have to go to the press again and have them write more articles about what goes on here are aren't you people sophisticated and mature enough to solve this on your own and treat me like a human being and not someone to flee from. I hate to say it, but it may be I am so far out of your league you don't have the smarts or the backbone to fix it. I patiently await someone with a backbone and integrity to address it. Thanks. :) Jvmphoto (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an adult. I've never encountered you before today, so I have no preconceived prejudices regarding you. If I understand correctly, you used your previous account to try to promote yourself, then got into a very public battle with Wikipedia in the press, after which you harassed and insulted other users, made legal threats, and were banned. Now you have created a new account (this is, in itself, against the rules, so this account is not going to be unblocked). With your new account, you tried to promote yourself while insulting other users. And now you are claiming that a court order requires you to be allowed to edit and threatening public attacks on Wikipedia as reasons to unblock you? You appear to be doing all of the same things that resulted in your block in the first place; didn't a wise man once say that the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I've received a vaguely threatening email from this account, including the golden phrase "if you pulled that shit in our Army you'd be court martialed [sic] for having an account with such a name". The email does, however, confirm that this account is run by the same person who ran the first account - Jeff Merkey. Mr Merkey, I can only suggest that you restrict your communications with Wikipedia and its users to emails to the OTRS (Email contact) team. I will not be replying to your email. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've blocked this account from sending emails, in light of further abuse of the system. Any questions, let me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received your emails, but I do not choose to correspond with you by email, because I'm not comfortable giving you my email address, given your history of harassment. You are not blocked because I am a lesbian. You are blocked for breaking Wikipedia's rules in a way that is disruptive and, frankly, a little scary. If you are not a mentally ill person who is likely to harass, sue, threaten, or stalk me in real life, please re-read your contributions and ask whether the words you are saying are communicating the message you intend them to- because that's the message I'm getting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]