User talk:Jessgj465931

welcome![edit]

Hello, Jessgj465931, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Jessgj465931, good luck, and have fun. User:Tbiw (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Veedu (1988 film). It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS[edit]

Please read WP:RS so you know what sort of sites are, and are not, worthy of inclusion. Edits like this, where you jam a bunch of references together don't do much to improve the article, because you're bloating it with irrelevant and/or useless links like to newsbugz.com or tamildhool.net or nettv4u.com. You did something similar here, apparently unaware that the faceless website wikibiopic.com is useless here. Further, there is no justification for stacking FIVE references back to back to support a fairly uncontroversial piece of information, like the names of a TV show's stars. If all you're doing is trying to bloat out the references so the article looks more important, and thus, is less likely to be deleted, that's not helpful, and nobody falls for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Daaask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you are not welcome to edit at Wikipedia so long as your first account remains blocked, assuming you even remember what that was. Any edits attributed to you may be reverted by any editor regardless of whether it was useful or not. We're not cleaning up after your sloppy, promotional edits. Cyphoidbomb (±talk) 16:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Cyphoidbomb[edit]

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).

Jessgj465931 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Am not the Daask, am new user, please understood

Decline reason:

I am unconvinced. Please provide a good reason as to why you aren't a sock, or simply appeal on your original account. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:10, 24 July 2020 (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 yet Dashukl was also attracted to Newsbugz, as I note was problematic in the WP:RS discussion section above, and you have edited at least 12 articles that Dashukl edited, which is odd considering you've only edited about 21 articles. And your ref-bloating here is almost identical to what Dashukl did here. In fact if we look at the totality of that Dashukl edit more closely, we see not only reference bloat, but the addition of a poorly-written Plot section as well. That would be almost identical to these edits, which includes your reference bloat I linked to above, plus an edit from a logged-out editor where a poorly-written plot section is added a few hours earlier. Hmm. Looks very similar to me. Especially since that IP range is the one Dashukl and Daaask edit from. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]