User talk:SpdrJcksn

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand why I was blocked yet I only use this account. Maybe my IP was changed by a software I had installed. Please email me at spdrjcksn@mail.com for any questions that will help me getting unblocked. I have now read the T&C and I apologise if I had made a mistake

Decline reason:

You'll have to explain this. Huon (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2016 (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.

SpdrJcksn (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

On December 24, 2015 21:46 (UTC), a checkuser Bbb23 placed an indefinite block on my user account SpdrJcksn which I now know was put under investigation on 26 December 2015 02:11 (UTC) by Vanjagenije allegedly for abusively using multiple accounts. Therefore, on 30 April, 2016 08:27 (UTC), I put in an unblock request on my user talk page which was declined by Huon on 30 April, 2016 19:16 (UTC) who asked me to explain the findings on that investigation. I have scrutinized those findings and I am quite concerned about them. What I initially reckoned was an accidental transgression on my part, has turned out to be a complicated and coordinated affair that I know little or close to nothing about. I certainly have no relation either private or professional with any of the other users of the sockpuppet group linked to my account. I have looked at their contributions and to a large extent those contributions are neither anything I am quite familiar with, nor mainly interested in. How these accounts are connected to mine is bewildering. There is no deliberate attempt from my account to disrupt wikipedia or what it stands for, and I believe the current problem we are facing here is not directly or proportionately related to my account or any other user's account. This indefinite block is not necessary from my point of view. First of all, I have never been blocked before. Secondly, my page has never been published. Where is the need for sockpuppetry where simple candidness prevails? Please remove the block, and continue the investigation. If any member can enlighten me on why my account ended up in this dismal situation, I am looking forward to their advice. SpdrJcksn (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It doesn't work like that. Checkusers can see a history of technical information, etc - and would not act on it if it was something simple like a 1-time login from a coffee shop. We are unable to unblock your account at this time. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:20, 14 June 2016 (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 have restored the previous declined unblock request - please do not remove it while you are still blocked. I have also fixed the format of your current unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your request now, you need to be aware that the checkuser tool can identify technical evidence to connect various accounts, for example same IP address and possibly even the same computer. Can you explain how it could technically appear that all the accounts were editing from the same place? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock= Hi,I do not know why or how those multiple logins from different accounts occurred. Perhaps it may be because I logged in from an internet cafe. There is no reason why I connected to those other accounts and since you are asking me to explain this phenomenon, I am at a loss to explain this technicality as I cannot even see what the checkuser is showing the admins who are replying to my unblock requests. I can change my password and follow any advice from the Admins with regards to the security of my account accordingly. I am just as puzzled as the next man about these connections and I do not mind being put under investigation if the results of that investigation would be beneficial to wikipedia. Please review my request and unblock me. Also I would like to know if these multiple logins are something that occurs frequently as this would perhaps shed some light on something that I may not be understanding at present.SpdrJcksn (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Draft:DJ WilSAF concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:DJ WilSAF, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:DJ WilSAF[edit]

Hello, SpdrJcksn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DJ WilSAF".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 21:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of DJ WilSAF for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DJ WilSAF is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ WilSAF until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]