User talk:Jxmie0

Hello, Jxmie0, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Discorser

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Discorser requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Guys I've been blocked for apparently being associated to a company which I was not. I believe this was unfair and also I could possibly be sued by the company because the name "Discorser" was banned and I could be taken to court. Please can you both unblock my account and the page name and I won't do anything again. Please help me. Jxmie0 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

Again I was reported for "Sock Puppetry" and I can confirm I do not own the company or am associated I only know about it and did it because I like the company personally. Once again this is unfair because I am in no way associated to the company and I'm in real trouble because I've gotten the subject name "Discorser" blocked and I could be sued or taken to court because of this so can somebody unblock both the names. Please. Jxmie0 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Documents

In the future, if I use my previously deleted page as the example, then how would I make it be relevant or significant, so as in what would I have to include. That would be better so if I want to write an article to know what to include to see if I should write it. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock|I was wrongly blocked for "Sock Puppetry" when I was not involved with the original company. I would also like the page title "Discorser" unblocked. Please. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)}} Jxmie0 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC) The article Discorser (having never existed here before) was created by User:Discorser at 17:49 and then deleted at 17:55 by me because it gave no indication as to why the company warranted a Wikipedia article. Then User:Jxmie0 registered at 18:26, and the article was recreated at 19:53 in exactly the same style of a single paragraph with no formatting, and essentially just the same words in a different order. The probability of that happening by pure coincidence and you not being connected with User:Discorser is vanishingly small, and I simply do not believe it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

Once again I am repeating this, I had previously seen the old Wikipedia page and I can confirm that both myself and @Discorser have emailed each other and we have come to the agreement that we were both wrongly blocked. Since Discorser is a User Contributed page I have helped them write a story before although they do not employ writers as that is their purpose therefore I wouldn't be surprised if you thought the words were similar. I am in a way a guardian and I keep the company going as they are non-profit therefore rely on solely by over 100 other writers including myself. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Jxmie0 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to put every comment in a new unblock request - one is sufficient. And it's interesting that the truth is starting to come out that you *do* have some association with the company, having only just said above that "I've been blocked for apparently being associated to a company which I was not". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here's another question - how did you manage to email User:Discorser when you do not appear to have Wikipedia email enabled? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

I am indeed new to Wikipedia and I did assume it was more of a information site. So I am confused as to how this all works. I did originally assume it would be easy but the experience has now turned into a major issue for individuals and companies alike. I don't think both me and the Editorial Manager for Discorser understood how this functioned therefore were totally baffled when we were blocked. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, what, now you've gone from someone with no connection with the company whatsoever and just happened to come along and write about it, to someone working with the company's Editorial Manager? Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Further proof

I can also further confirm that I was also not involved is that there was almost 2 hours difference in when each article was created and they update their website at 00 ending hours therefore that is why there may be a slightly closer time period. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I didn't see that message at the end. I'm not sure what you mean but I was able to email Discorser using my email address, if you mean I haven't confirmed it then I didn't do that because I was busy writing the replacement page for them. I do have an email, just it isn't confirmed. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to test if it is possible to use the email facility without having confirmed your address, please send me an email the same way you sent one to Discorser (and do not confirm your Wikipedia address until after I've responded here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Manager

I don't work for the company, I supply for it in a sense. The editorial manager was someone who replied to me when I emailed them. Please unblock me and the "Discorser" page name. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admit that you have a Wikipedia:conflict of interest in recreating the article? Please spend some time learning how Wikipedia works (see links above) before wasting any more time complaining. Most of your contributions so far seem to have been advertising. Dbfirs 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly blocked

{{unblock|I was wrongly blocked despite not being the company and "Sock Puppetry" means that I am basically the same person under a different name when I am not. I don't even know anyone from the company personally. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)}} Jxmie0 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stop putting each comment in a new unblock request, so please stop doing that (also, you don't need to start a new section for each comment). One unblock request is all that is needed, so please leave it until an admin comes along and reviews it for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

I'm not sure how I am advertising for a company that already has advertising elsewhere, I personally would never use Wikipedia as a place for advertising. Jxmie0 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock and this will be ended

{{unblock|I would like to request to be unblocked by my username and the page title name "Discorser". Once this is done this dispute will be ended. If I am continued to be blocked then I will need proof that I am related to the company otherwise this is an invalid block, used purely for punishment. Jxmie0 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)}} Jxmie0 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked?

Please write a short description as to why I have been blocked. You will need to provide proof by means of my name being associated to Discorser on their data base or any other means otherwise you will still be consider as doing this solely for "Punishment". Jxmie0 (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I am confused as to what you mean with the email, but I can confirm I promise I'm not conflicted with discorser's Jxmie0 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I was asking was for you to send me an email the same way you sent one to Discorser. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock so I can delete

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).

Jxmie0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Discorser has outlined their terms to me and we have decided it best for us to clear our names. We would like it if we were unblocked and the page name "Discorser" unblocked as well so we can clear our names. I will then proceed to delete this account. I understand maybe why the page was deleted and apologise. I would like for both myself and the Page title name to be unblocked so I can be cleared and then delete my account. Sorry. Thank you. Jxmie0 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear sockpuppetry and blatant conflict-of-interest edits here, and you haven't actually provided a good reason to unblock you (though you have requested multiple unblock reviews, even after being asked to limit yourself to one). It simply doesn't look like you have taken the time to read the policies we linked to and it seems unlikely at this time (though not necessarily in the future, after you've read and understood our policies) that you will contribute positively to Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

How would I improve?

If you weren't already aware I edited around 20 articles before I made a new one and I told you that I made it because I was looking at some other companies and fixing their info and noticed that this one didn't exist even though Discorser said they had created it. I further can't persuade you to unblock me and I will say this, that I have nothing else to do. If you decide to keep me blocked you are doing so on very treacherous territory. If you want to go on this way then I cannot further persuade you. But this will turn from an innocent situation to one that will not be so good. So I have said all I can and apologised relentless times. I cannot prove that I will improve the encyclopaedia. I feel as if though the Wikipedia has been destroyed but I would (could) have helped by adding information about things that weren't already there. Jxmie0 (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the weekend and people have their own private lives to live, so be patient and an admin will come and review your unblock request in due course. Oh, and just for the sake of accuracy, you have edited five other articles, four of which have been reverted as unhelpful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it strange the way you and User:Discorser always seem to be online and appealing your blocks at the same time? I think there's enough for a sock puppet report, which I will file shortly - you will be informed when it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Discorser, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware

Good Morning,

I have since confirmed my email address and The only reason we appeal our blocks at similar times is because we both decide when we send an email to each other. Discorser replies we both them decide what to do and we do it. Unfortunately discorser alerted me that they would be investigating this case internally under Verbal Abuse as to which people are accused so much so that it is now used purely for Hate. If it gets out of hand any further then we may decide to investigate into all the Administrators that are involved leading to those accounts getting banned or removed. Please be aware of this. Any more "Hate" messages towards us will be recorded with my permission. Jxmie0 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making threats is really not going to help, so I strongly suggest you back off from that path before you lose your ability to edit even this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

Just for anyone interested in the subject matter here, the last version of the Discorser article opened with "Discorser is a Media and News publisher which is run by the Optim Corporation", and said it has "thus far revolutionised the way we interact with News" (the latter despite the claim that it was only "established on the 16th of November, 2015").

I've done a good bit of searching now, and I can't find anything to corroborate that at all - I can find no media and news publishing, and nothing to connect the name with Optim Corp. In fact, all I can find is a couple of social media accounts under the name "Discorser" but with no content (and the Google Facebook hit gets a non-existent or deleted page). Discorser does not appear to have its own web site, and the URLs discorser.com and discorser.co.uk are unregistered. In short, I can find no evidence for the existence of this entity at all, and the more I look the more I don't find anything. This whole thing looks more and more like a hoax, or perhaps an SEO attempt at bigging up something that's not really started yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

The reason being you may do all the research you can and you will indeed find social Media pages although the website is not under either a .com or .co.uk page because as I wrote in the article "They are a non-profit company". They do indeed have a website and are established although Optim Corporation has no info about it thus far. Also they do have a website but it's not under the name "Discorser". Once again it is not an attempt to "Make it big" because that's not their ambitions. As it said it on their website, it hopes to "Change the way we read and receive news" and it has already had a good 20 or so days. The fact you would accuse me of advertising for them is absurd. Since they are indeed non-profit then The advertising industry is not one of which they would tend to wade into, and as I did help them for a while, which I no longer do due to this, then I can confirm they told us all "Advertising in an industry we'd prefer to steer clear from. Our goal is only to offer people the best news." Which is their words, not mine. Jxmie0 (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed have a website and are established although Optim Corporation has no info about it thus far. I don't understand why a company associated with Discorser would not know their website. It shouldn't be confidential information as a website is a public presence for the organization.

If you can provide the website for this non-profit, it would go a long way in demonstrating that this effort is not a hoax and that this organization actually exists.

Also, user accounts can not be deleted so that is not an option. Also, articles can not be blocked so it is incorrect to say that the article Discorser has been blocked. Only editors can be blocked, not articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, show us this mysterious website that even their alleged operator, Optim Corp, doesn't seem to know about - I could find no mention of Discorser on the Optim site. Oh, and how about showing us some examples of the way Discorser has "revolutionised the way we interact with News" then? If it has already done something so revolutionary, you must be able to show us, mustn't you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website

Being smug won't make me get the website any quicker and I have bookmarked the site onto my browser however, they are currently getting a new domain. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the fact that Optim Corp. don't know their own website, because they do. Also If you had read the article then three other companies based online have already been established for a year with one having a subsidiary. Clearly that is proof that they exist even if for the meantime you don't have a website. Also the reason being the website isn't heavily pushed as on Discorsers existing social media they aren't planning to publish it until has new domain which was being expected to come sometime this upcoming week. Jxmie0 (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, so you admit they don't actually have a website after all! How about this "revolutionised the way we interact with News", then? Hmm? How have they done that and where is it? At this point I am a fraction away from revoking your ability to edit this page for your continued evasiveness bordering on trolling, but because of my good nature I really don't want to do that - but I will if you don't either come up with the goods pretty quickly or shut up and go away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jxmie0, you are the one who wrote They do indeed have a website and are established although Optim Corporation has no info about it thus far so you brought up the fact that the Optim Corporation didn't know where the website is.

A bigger issue is that it is clear that Discorser doesn't meet even the minimum levels of notability since you can not even demonstrate that this company exists. And don't expect other editors to search through partners' websites, looking for mentions of Discorser, Boing! said Zebedee has already done a search for information on this company and come up empty-handed.

At this point, you should forget about this article, which is not suitable for Wikipedia right now, and think about your own status as a blocked editor and if you would eventually like an opportunity to edit other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Website

I would screenshot the website but I don't know how to insert images or I'm sure I can't. Please don't block me further, although I would like to request a name change but I'm also not sure how that is done... Jxmie0 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance - show us evidence of how they "revolutionised the way we interact with News". One more edit from you that does not substantiate that claim and your talk page privilege will be revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me (as just an ordinary occasional editor of Wikipedia, without any special privileges), that we are wasting our time responding to User:Jxmie0. I assume that the website exists only on someone's computer and not on the web, otherwise we would have been given a URL as evidence that the organisation exists. Google seems to be unable to link to any meaningful page, which suggests, until we get evidence to the contrary, that the whole thing might be a hoax, and a novel variation on trolling. I am not making any accusations, but the fact that User:Jxmie0 has not been fully honest on this page suggests that there is something seriously wrong. None of .net .org or .news has been registered to this organisation. Dbfirs 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

For anyone interested, I have just blocked another sock, User:Bobstheword, who has recreated a Discorser article again - again making totally unsupported grandiose claims. I have salted the article title so it can not be created again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and given that the new article contained things like "which they hope will "Revolutionise the way we receive the News"" (rather than claiming it has already done that) and "they both do not have established websites", it's obviously our joker here trying to be clever based on the feedback on this page. I am therefore removing talk page privilege from this account, as I said I would do above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The crazy part, Boing! said Zebedee, is that the now deleted new article HAD a website link even though Discorser doesn't have their own domain. I have no idea why Jxmie0 couldn't have just posted this link when it was first requested. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why he didn't want us to see it, as it's just a site on a free web creator that anyone can get hold of - no domain of its own or anything. And it does nothing to establish any importance for a Wikipedia article - in fact, it does the opposite. The "Get straight to the news section" is just six (count them) "stories" with minimalist blurb and no real content. There's none of the claimed "user created" news, and certainly nothing remotely close to revolutionising the way we receive the news. The site is plainly just a mock up, and I think it's clear this is a bunch of hopefuls trying to get free publicity for a new venture that hasn't taken off yet, and they've done it by lying about it rather than actually working for recognition the way honest organizations do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]