User talk:Jimmyson1991

Sock[edit]

Are you really a sockpuppet? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, how?--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because the sockpuppet investigation states that a main M.O. is claiming that people are Jewish, and your username is Jimmyson1991, while one of the other socks is named Jimmyson88, and you made this edit, so I am kind of connecting the dots. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got banned.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So, the answer isn't "No, how?", but instead "Yes, I know exactly how." You didn't hurt Wikipedia. You hurt me. And I'm a good person. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did I hurt you... I've did nothing wrong.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I trusted you and it turns out you are one of many socks. But, I'm not really mad or anything. You actually make good edits. What's with the Jew thing? So strange. And jettisoning accounts? Also, you're not banned, from what I see. How about a fresh start? Just normal, constructive edits -- nothing controversial. I'll help ya, ok? :) I'll make you a drawing for your user page, and then you can stick to one account and we can even work together. Okay? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was banned on the other account so I just made a new one as a fresh start kinda thing, and because I wasn't really making any anti-Semitic comments, I do have political beliefs but I don't put them on Wikipedia.

Do you want me to make a new account for a new fresh start? Also, when putting a google book as a source do you still need to add ^[1] at the end just when I look at this page for help;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages

It just shows

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18.

Would it not be with this inside a ref link? with Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 18. in the middle?

Thanks.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, refs are a moot point at the moment. As for editing, I don't know your history with socking and explaining yourself. I'll leave that up to you to talk to the blockers. One thing's for sure though. You can't just make new accounts to evade blocks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made a new account to escape a ban, it was for a fresh start.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth now have I been blocked from editing for? :S:S:S:S!!!! --Jimmyson1991 (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know? I think you're pulling my leg. I spent a minute or two digging into your past incarnations' talk pages: [1][2], and I don't think they will let you edit. They warned you a zillion times. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see any reason why I've been banned again, I did my time before and been put on another ban for nothing wtf? Infact this time around after a fresh start I did alot of good info on pages!!!!!--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I posted here. I don't know if it will be accepted. As long as you don't make any more of those controversial edits, and stick to one username, I would be happy to see you come in from the cold. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you very much and I will only stick to this name, after I got banned then unbanned on the other ones I just made new ones but I will stick to this one because I haven't made any bad edits on this name that's why I'm a little peed because I just want a fresh clean start and just want to be Wikipedia user like you and I have on several times before editing on this name went into the discussion box to ask first where as before I never and have learnt from my mistakes, thanks again. What do I do now? What actually is socket puppet anyways?--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also about this thing about editing Jewish ancestry or not, as long as it's verified I don't see any problem it is a good thing listing peoples ethnicity.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that a condition of allowing you to resume editing would be to avoid the whole Jewish ancestry or Irish ancestry thing.

To understand sockpuppeteering, see WP:SOCKPUPPET. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But surely as long as it's beneficial I don't see any problem if adding someone who has Jewish ancestry, for example they was an endless debating on Elvis's great-grandmother but I didn't bother adding anymore because I didn't want to be banned from editing.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of adding such information, it being contested, and you warring over it. You've restored the content against community consensus. Considering this history, I doubt very much if you will be allowed make such edits again. If that is your intention, or the reason you want to edit, don't bother. There are lots of other edits you can make. I suggest letting that one go, and editing in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my edits if you can on this name, and this name only I've not made any bad edits at all. I just want to be able to edit pages which I feel are necessary to be edited not put anything offensive on here.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that under your current name, you have made good edits, reflects only a self-declared fresh start.

Administrators will note your conduct and contributions under all of your names. They will also consider the fact that you've created new user names to evade blocks.

They will weigh all of this out. I'm not sure if they will place restrictions on the kinds of edits you make, or even let you edit at all. Perhaps they will allow everything, on the condition that, if your edits are disputed, you discuss them on talk pages, and accept consensus.

Anyway, let's see what an admin says. Specultating and discussing it with me won't achieve much, as I am not an administrator. Good luck, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, thank you.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The admin says I could post at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN to raise the subject of a fresh start. Looking at your edits, they seem to be almost single-purpose: adding religion/ethnicity/nationality. Would you be happy editing without touching that area? Could you agree to that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at your previous edits, I see that when an edit was disputed and removed, you kept adding it back. You would have to agree that, if and edit is disputed and removed, you will discuss it on the talk page, and accept consensus. Agreed? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Discussion with admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2011

(UTC)

Okay, so what do I do now?--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that I'm clear, is that "Okay, I will avoid religion/ethnicity/nationality edits and, okay, I will discuss disputed edits and talk and agree with consensus"? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I can't make any religion/ethnicity/nationality to be unblocked?--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I would be surprised if they unblock you even if you do promise. Actually, I get the distinct impression that that is exactly all you want to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just want to make sure what I can/cannot do. I'm not indefinitely banned anyways but I would prefer to be unbanned because I've been banned for whatever reason when I've not even made any bad edits on here but all constructive and worthly edits like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Pound_(film)--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not made any bad edits? Check your contributions and talk pages. They are all you, and lots of warring and questionable edits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on about exclusively just this name, and even them bad edits are not racist or anti-semitic.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just keep avoiding the issues. I was talking about warring too, and you won't address your behaviour if unblocked. Look at all your past talk pages. I'm not seeing anything resembling a two-way street there, or frankly, here. You can email an admin to try to be unblocked. But, I've quite had enough. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting banned for absolutely nothing though and no if I get unblocked I'll make constructive edits like I have on this name only.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are blocked, and keep getting blocked[edit]

I think maybe you're missing something here.

Wikipedia sees you as User:Vince123456789, because that was your original incarnation. You cannot say "Now, I'm Jimmyson1991, and have done nothing wrong." That's like getting thrown out of a bar for fighting, walking back in with fake ID, and saying "Look. Now I'm Bob Smith. I've done nothing wrong."

Well, you've been Bob, and Dave, and Jerry, and each time you've entered the bar, you've gotten into a fight.

This last time, you, Jimmyson1991, were thrown out of the bar for two reasons:

You are actually Vince123456789 -- known for fighting.
You tried to re-enter the bar with fake ID.

Does that help you understand? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is highly flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, you can discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against the old account. Discontinuing the old account means it will not be used again; it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet. It is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of previous accounts before standing for adminship or functionary positions. Failure to do so is likely to be considered deceptive. See WP:CLEANSTART.

Which is exactly what I've done - a fresh start. This is the internet not real life.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community of people working together, much like real life.

Historically, your "fresh start" incarnations displayed the same behaviour. Who knew this latest one would be the one where you decide to reform your ways? Naturally you got blocked on-sight.

I asked you specifically if you would avoid old topic areas. You danced around the question.

Here's a suggestion:

Make a new username.
Inform Arbitration Committee.
Do not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic.
Edit constructively. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't -

Account creation from this IP address (92.238.166.81) has been temporarily restricted. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via a proxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access. To enquire about the block or request that an account be created for you, please send an e-mail to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org with details of your IP address, the administrator who blocked you and the reason they gave (this information is available below). If you are requesting an account, please include in your e-mail the account name you wish. We apologise for any inconvenience caused to any innocent users. Information about the block: account creation from this IP address (92.238.166.81) was blocked by Tnxman307, who gave the reason Abusing multiple accounts. Return to User talk:Jimmyson1991--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A fresh start at getting you a fresh start[edit]

Okay. One last shot at this. I'll take this up with administrators if you can respond to the following favourably. (I'm not making any promises about acceptance. In fact, when they read this talk page, there's a good chance they'll decline the request.)

Do you understand why your previous incarnations were blocked?
Do you agree to edit without adding religion/ethnicity/nationality to articles?
Do you agree that, if an edit is disputed and removed, you will discuss it on the talk page, and accept consensus?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Here is the post.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ and

[1] ^ and

[1]