User talk:IrishJ123

East and West Cork[edit]

Hi. "East Cork" and "West Cork" have no statutory definition in the context in which you are using them. Please stop lobbing them into every town/village article that is either vaguely east or west of Cork city.

Also, if you want to continue editing, for the 100th time, please make a case for an unblock of your exiting user. Continually creating new users (to circumvent blocks) is totally inappropriate and will likely result in a perma-ban. Guliolopez (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I thought I was helping by adding extra information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJ123 (talk • contribs)

Hi. It is not helpful to add uncited editorial and unnecessary qualifiers to dozens of articles. Nor is it helpful to continually attempt to circumvent project norms on block-evasion and sock-puppetry. In fact, the community has made it quite clear that continued failure or refusal to recognise project norms is entirely *un*helpful to the project goals. Flatly, the manner of continued engagement is NOT helpful. Please find something else to do with your time. Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that i should add town and village extract to county cork,Like which ha been done in county kildare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJ123 (talk • contribs)

No. I do not believe you should do ANYTHING in the article mainspace. Not from this account at any rate. And not until there is a change in community consensus (that the behaviours that led to multiple blocks have been addressed. Namely the flat-out lying about other editors, contra CIR patterns and overt sock puppetry.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give me a chance at least to prove you wrong ,I know what to do now ,Im only new ,you have been on for years ,Of course you know everything what to do the guideline etc...,But i am still finding my feet,Like today is the first time i clicked on the sandbox ,I never saw that.I thought you just edit it but I see what the sandbox stands for now. Thanks for the Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishJ123 (talk • contribs)

The entire community (not just me) has given you literally hundreds of chances. In each case you threw it back in people's faces. In several cases quite 'violently' - shouting nonsense about discrimination or outright lying about what other community members (who were purely trying to help you in good faith) had done or had said. The community has no tolerance for dishonesty. In that vein I would note that you were advised about the sandbox environment (by another editor) months ago, by me on several occasions shortly after that, and you even worked in a sandbox environment for a period. So I find it very hard to understand that the concept of a sandbox is somehow (now) "new to you". Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

If you want to assist the project, and feel you can do so within project norms, then please work on something "new". Ideally in a sandbox environment or similar. Instead of persistently disrupting dozens of other/existing articles. And please do so from your original account. Guliolopez (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. Hi. As noted, if your contributions are going to be seen as positive, useful, and in-keeping with project norms, please consider:

Moving for an unblock, and making your edits under your original profile. Anything else is likely to be considered problematic under the guidelines on using multiple accounts and block evasion
Reading (as requested previously and for the umpteenth time) the basic editing guidelines, including the cheatsheets (which cover adding a category or references). The community does not have infinite patience for basic formatting issues.
Engaging with other editors and building consensus.

I think this is (perhaps) the 6th time that I have stated that (in the face of lying, disruption, trolling and overtly spurious ANI claims) it was the last time I would offer any help. You can take this note as the final offer. If you chose not to heed the assistance (offered by myself and dozens of others), then do not be surprised if non-compliant edits are taken by the community to be disruptive. bordering on vandalism. And hence dealt with accordingly. Guliolopez (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 4)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:IrishJ123/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 11:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! IrishJ123, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 11:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:45, 12 October 2017 (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).

IrishJ123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Why exactly am I blocked for?

Decline reason:

It literally tells you why you were blocked right above this unblock request. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2017 (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.

Plagarism[edit]

Hi. Yet again, when afforded even a small amount of leeway, you use it in a way that is not helpful to your own interests. Or the interests of the project. You *cannot* copy and paste content from copyrighted sources - a guideline that you (and your umpteen socks) have been advised of many times. As per the previous notices on this guideline, unlike some policies (like perhaps our etiquette guidelines) it is one of a number of Wikipedia policies which have legal considerations. As has been mentioned many times before, your continued persistence in contra-policy editing is not helpful to the project. You have previously stated that your goal is to help the project. Please do so by finding something else to do with your time. Outside of Wikipedia. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]