Jump to content

User talk:Jessi1989/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, Jessi1989, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.
I hope you like it here and decide to stay!
Happy editing! Cliff smith talk 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scoring through text"

Its called a strikeout. Go on up and hit "edit" for this answer to see the symbols you place immediately before and immediately after the text you wish to stike. Method one is the easiest way but method two works just as well. Schmidt (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I already did it. Here's the edit: [1]. You can always try striking my comment here, just for practice. :) Franamax (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thanks for all the help xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
We were all new once. Heck... I still am. The only way to learn is to ask. Happy editing. Schmidt (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What game?So Smart s0 Dumb (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

the game, seek and ye shall find ;) Jessi1989 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rogers Orchards references

Hello! As per your comments, I went back and fixed the references on the Rogers Orchards article. The Southington Citizen reference is now properly cited to the hard copy and not the online edition (which no longer supports the hard copy), and two new references were added (one from the Hartford Courant, one from a book on New England that is excerpted online). You may wish to re-review the article and your earlier comments regarding WP:RS. Thanks for the trenchant input -- it helped the article! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And thank you, again, for taking the time to offer your fine input. The beauty of Wikipedia is having people working together. Feel free to call on me if you have any projects where my assistance could be helpful. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lathander

You're right that they weren't provided (hence why i closed it as no consensus rather than keep, in the case of this debate you guys had the stronger argument). However, WP:FICT has been a cause of huge conflicts in the past, including 2 arbitration cases, so closing debates contrary to the surface consensus would land me in a world of hurt. Wizardman 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees close as Keep

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees in line with my reading of censensus. Though sourcing is important, deletion is not necessarily warranted if sources may exist even if they are not (yet) cited in the article. See WP:DEADLINE. Thus I do not feel that policy requires deletion in the face of a perponderance of calls to keep. If sourcing is not improved, a renomination in 2-3 months would be appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The policy I based my decision on is WP:CONSENSUS. If you feel that my reading was wrong you may wish to appeal it to WP:DRV rather than renominating immediately at AfD which will almost certainly generate (rightly or wrongly) calls to "speedy keep" based on the short time interval between the nominations. A renomination after a time interval of a few months is more likely to be fairly considered. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Homelessness article

Hi Jessica. You made a change to the Homelessness article in the wording. From "Specialized Solutions to Homelessness" to "A Proposed Solution to Homelessness". There is only ONE entry in the section and I don't know how much merit it deserves. There are a lot of proposed solutions to homelessness and the one there is not a major player in the nation. It almost seems to border on a bit of promotion of the experiment rather than encyclopedic. Your thoughts ? Thanks and Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jessica. I agree ! Bests. xxx -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Loch Ness Monster

You made some edits including queries about no photo. This is because the main info box had been deleted by a vandal. I will restore the page to an earlier version, which loses your edits, but please do carry out improvements. Regards Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

robert trumpler

No worries. I didn't mean to insinuate that you'd done anything improper. Just that once the !votes started coming in, it was clear what the outcome would be. I think the AfD as a whole was a demonstration of the system working as it should. Now, if every article you nominate for deletion winds up being kept, then maybe that might be time for a re-think on how you nominate. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

looks like the URL moved (or they stopped making it available in OpenBook format) a pdf version is available from the same site though. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Living Word Fellowship

Hey Jessica. I wanted to get your opinion on whether you think the article on the Living Word Fellowship should be deleted now. With all the recent edits there is only one usable source left. This doesn't seem to support notability. I'm also concerned that with the use of the one source that there is no ability to make sure the article is neutral. I picked up a copy of "Another Gospel" and I can't see why anyone would expect a neutral article on any of its topics if it were used as the main source for an article. Any thoughts? Jeremiah (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

losethegame.com blacklisting

hiya, i'm happy to request whitelisting for specific use but before i do that i'd like to understand the reason for the blacklisting and your decline. the two links you just pasted me also don't appear to show any evidence of spamming. the first shows ohnoitsjamie reporting a user named rabidfoxes for discussing losethegame.com on the talk page of the game (mind game), and the second shows a user named loserno1 being the author of the article about the game (mind game) and then also apparently getting blocked for discussing it. is this website some kind of taboo topic that i don't know about? i've certainly been treated pretty curtly here for even mentioning it. anyway i've just spent the past couple of hours looking through the history of the stuff you and ohnoitsjamie pasted me to see what i'm missing and what seems to have happened, as far as i can see, is as follows:

1) in february 2006 a user named jonty303 made 14 article edits containing losethegame.com. most of these look inappropriate, although it looks like there is at least some reasoning behind each addition rather than just random spamming. anyway, ohnoitsjamie then warned him not to add any more links or he will be blocked. he apparently listened because he stopped and made no more edits since february 2006. jonty303 was not blocked and losethegame.com was not blacklisted, contrary to what ohnoitsjamie says here.

2) in october 2007, 18 months after the previous incident, losethegame.com was added, not to the wikipedia spam blacklist, but to the meta spam blacklist, here. the reason given was not spamming, but was "encouraging page vandalism at www.losethegame.com/strategies.htm#wikipedia" (which doesn't seem to exist). this is also contrary to what ohnoitsjamie says here that jonty303 started encouraging vandalism on his site subsequent to the blacklisting.

3) in march 2008, a user called loserno1 wrote the article the game (mind game), which was apparently already deleted and a "perennial request", and took it to DRV where it was reinstated. in may, this user was blocked (by ohnoitsjamie) for discussing losethegame.com on someone's talk page, tried to get himself unblocked 4 times, failed, and has made no edits since ohnoitsjamie protected his talk page

4) in august 2008 a user called rabidfoxes discussed losethegame.com on the talk page of the game (mind game) and ohnoitsjamie reported him for suspected sockpuppetry. from what i can see, neither rabidfoxes or loserno1 ever added losethegame.com as a link anywhere, so i'm not sure how these are relevant to this unblacklisting request.

so, i still can't see the reasoning behind your decline. you first declined it "per ohnoitsjamie" who stated that it was blacklisted because of a 3 year spamming campaign, which he has now proved unable or unwilling to provide any evidence of, by way of diffs or otherwise. i bring that to your attention and you now decline it again giving "more background" which also shows no evidence of linkspam, it just shows 2 users who got in trouble for discussing losethegame.com on the talk page of the game (mind game), an article about the subject of that website. if you look at that talk page here, you'll see that many users have discussed this and the general consensus was that it is probably worth mentioning it in the article, but that at the moment the blacklisting prevents this.

i don't mean this in a nasty way, but it looks to me that you are declining this without fully looking in to the facts. anyway i've looked into it for you and per the above, i honestly can't see any reason why this site is (or should remain) blacklisted. unless there is something else i am missing? thanks for your help. Jessi1989 (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your persistence in this matter suggests that you are yet another friend of Jonty's asked to attempt to unblacklist this link (same questions, same "evidence" presented). Admins considering this matter may contact me directly for more info. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
excuse me??? let's get this clear, as i said when i requested unblacklisting, i wasn't even sure whether the site should have been unblacklisted, but i wanted to use something hosted there as a reference. if i had known about whitelisting i would have requested that. however, you barged into the unblacklisting request with what turns out to be at best a big exaggeration and at worst an out right lie. the admin then declined my request per your exaggeration/lie. what my "persistence in this matter suggests" is that you keep dodging my very simple requests and being really deceptive about this whole issue. all i've asked you for are the diffs that back up your statement! if you had just said "ok, here are some examples of the spamming campaign" and linked me to some, or if you can't, then said "sorry, i can't find any linkspam, seems i was mistaken" and taken your comment back then i wouldn't have needed to "persist" at all. who are you suggesting that i am presenting the same questions/evidence as? i would be very interested to see the previous unblacklist requests you mention. i wonder if you declined them based on the same "evidence" or whether they were declined with a real reason. to any admins considering this matter who contact jamie: i humbly recommend you look into the facts for yourselves rather than just taking jamie's word for granted. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No. The rationale for blacklisting was correct. The rationale for declining your request is correct. As I've said, you can request whitelisting for a specific purpose if you need to.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
such rationale may well be correct, but you have yet to tell me what the rationale is, which is all i have asked for. all you gave was "per ohnoitsjamie", but what jamie described as "a history going back to 2006 of spamming links" turned out to be 14 article edits made solely in feb 06. so if you would care to explain the rationale i would be more than happy to go away and request whitelisting as you suggest, but i see little point until you answer my question because jamie or you will probably just decline that too saying "declined coz of linkspam" again without providing any evidence of this linkspam. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
(1) The nominal reason for blacklisting on meta was advocacy of Wikipedia vandalism via a Firefox plugin. Though the plugin may not be hosted there at this time, the damage is done. (2) The Jonty303 account is not the only account to spam this link. Other more recent accounts are likely to either be socks of Jonty or friends of Jonty who've spent inordinate amounts of energy petitioning for it's removal. (3) Whitelisting is appropriate when a particular link is of value to Wikipedia. There is nothing of value to Wikipedia on that site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
(1) ok, that's what i said originally. so it wasn't due to linkspam, as you claimed it was in order to get the unblacklisting request declined. so the blacklisting now is just a form of "revenge" for the vandalism thing i guess? seems kind of un-wiki-like, and all it does is prevent well-meaning editors with a genuine reason for using this site from doing so, but ok (tho i don't see "site is known to have once encouraged vandalism of wikipedia" listed anywhere on wp:blacklist)
(2) yeah you keep saying this but you keep avoiding showing me. can you point to any examples of a) the 3-year spamming campaign you mentioned and/or b) other users who have made unblacklist requests for this site? i can't find any. the two users mike linked to didn't add any linkspam. if this whole thing has as much history as you keep making out you should have no trouble finding a plethora of examples, surely.
(3) that's a content issue, and is your particular opinion. we do things by consensus here, right? Jessi1989 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing Hainan?

Hmmmm, such a diverse set of interests. May I ask how you happened upon Hainan as a page to edit? Few venture so far east. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Frodesiak (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

hey, yes, i plan to visit hainan next year. any recommendations or advice? thanks for your curiosity :) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have lived on this island for 3 years (in Haikou), and do have a bit to suggest:

1. Avoid December through March. This is a period of little sun and plenty of fog (not smog). It is damp and clammy.

2. Mid-summer is very hot. If you like it hot, as I do, then you will love it then. Spring and autumn are lovely.

3. Bring very little. You can get everything here -- cheap, except for earplugs.

4. Don't bother with health insurance. It is an utter scam. Read the fine print and you will see.

5. There is really no malaria here, so you won't need pills or anything like that.

6. Google: Banana Hostel in Haikou if you plan to come here. It is owned by a Londoner, and is a great base, and excellent resource.

7. Sanya has good beaches (by Chinese standards), but it is expensive, filled with rowdy Russians, and has pickpockets.

8. Mountainous towns in the middle of the island are lovely.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

Jessi1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

this doesn't make any sense. i honestly didn't think the ssp was a big deal because i never expected anything to come of it. mick got angry because i added some sourced information to an article he doesn't like. then this admin actually blocks me, saying that all my edits were unsourced. but they were all sourced. he is very offensive saying that wikipedia is better off without me. he clearly didn't look at any of the evidence. he said that my "editing elsewhere has been trivial", and then wiped my talkpage which had plenty of comments and discussions from the other areas i've been involved in. take a look through my contributions and you will see that i have only ever added sourced information to any article. if anyone can point out any of my contributions that were disruptive, please do so. also, i'm pretty sure that all these users have been trying to out me, which i think should be taken very seriously. thanks for your time. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request does not address the reason for your block, which was the abuse of multiple accounts. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

SSP Case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kernow. Thank you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This user was blocked for sock or meat puppetry, per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kernow. Please do not unblock without my approval, or a community discussion. This appears to be an experienced sock puppetmaster. Jehochman Talk 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that the user complains about "trying to out me". The reason for that complaint is that connecting the various sock puppet accounts leads back to the main account which is semi-self identified. If a user shares personal information with one account, and then engages in sock puppetry with another, connecting the accounts is not outing. Jehochman Talk 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
no, the reason for that complaint is mick saying that "these accounts are related to/used by Haywood" (in the ssp) and jamie saying "you are yet another friend of Jonty's" (which was on my talkpage before you wiped it). jamie has also inferred that i am haywood a few times before. this is outing, and you are supporting it. according to the wp:outing page i'm not even supposed to argue that i'm not haywood. Jessi1989 (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
and also saying "kernow is haywood" and then "jessi1989 is kernow" is the same as saying "jessi1989 is haywood". Jessi1989 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

unblock decline

sorry you must have misunderstood something. of course i am addressing the muliple account abuse accusation. i'm saying that i haven't abused multiple accounts. the blocking admin said that the reason he was certain i have been is that i kept adding unsourced info to an article. which is nonsense. all the info i added was sourced by very notable sources like the metro and kerrang radio. i dont believe you can have looked into all this in the 15 minutes between my request and your decline. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that all these accounts are related. The only thing we don't know is whether you're actually all the same person, or whether you're all friends of Haywood's who are editing on his behalf. Either is against the rules, though, so it's sort of a moot point. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
this argument is just going in one big circle. if you read my unblock request you'll see i have already explained why it's not pretty clear that these accounts are related. jehochman blocked me due to behavioural evidence because i made disruptive edits to the jonty haywod article, because i added unsourced info to that article, and because my edits elsewhere have been trivial. all three of these points are completely wrong. can you show me one edit i made to that article that was either disruptive or unsourced? Jessi1989 (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
actually can you even show me anything in the haywood article that is unsourced? Jessi1989 (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
this is crazy. i knew i recognised both your names from somewhere. looks like you (fisherqueen) and jehochman were both involved in the blocking of kernow earlier this year. of course jehochman has wiped his talk page so that no one would notice. do you not think i've already read that page? these accusations have been going on since i showed any interest in the game or haywood article months ago. so both fisherqueen and jehochman wanted kernow blocked, and it looks like the evidence was "pretty clear" to you there too. that is until some sensible admins looked into it and realsied that he hadn't done anything wrong and unblocked him. guess i'll just have to hope that the same thing happens here. Jessi1989 (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You have very nearly acknowledged that you are a personal friend of Haywood's. As such. you are wrong to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. If you had said, "Yes, I did edit when Haywood asked me to. I didn't realize it was against the rules, and I won't do it again," then you would probably have found more support for an unblock than the strategy you are using. Outing is not relevant; I am not even remotely interested in your real name or where you live. I'm only interested in not having to have this same conversation with another of his friends next month. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
what on earth do you mean by "You have very nearly acknowledged that you are a personal friend of Haywood's"? you're now saying i should lie to get unblocked, but instead i'm using the "strategy" of telling the truth, using the "strategy" of explaining why everything you and jehochman have said so far is untrue (have you even looked at my contributions?). do you really believe that haywood has all these friends around the world willing to do whatever he tells them? or do you think it's more likely that i'm one of the millions of people that have heard about him in the media so i decided to add to his article? the only contact i've ever had with haywood is when ohnoitsjamie lied about copyright confirmation being required to link to a source. i emailed losethegame.com and the kerrang dj for confirmation. both replied. anyway, the fact is, i haven't done anything wrong. jehochman has accused me of being disruptive and adding unsourced information. this is completely untrue. please show me some diffs for this. i know you can't, that's why you ignored this fact in your reply. you have indefinitely blocked a user who has done nothing wrong. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Quote: do you really believe that haywood has all these friends around the world willing to do whatever he tells them? Yes. Haywood's stated goal is to promote his website by any and all means, and he encourages anyone who listens to help. Similar near-single-purpose accounts in the future will also be blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
has haywood really stated that? can you show me where? i'm sure you must have a reliable source for that or you wouldn't be stating it, why not add that information to the article?
look. i was blocked with the only "evidence" that i am a sock being my supposed disruptive edits and adding unsourced info to articles. i have done neither of these things. you, fisherqueen and jehochman are clearly aware of this or you would have posted some evidence here from my contributions. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
so, you're saying that anyone who edits the jonty haywood article will be blocked indefinitely unless they have been registered for years with thousands of edits. you should probably put up a warning "Warning: Any users trying to add information to this article will be blocked indefinitely. Have a nice day." that way future innocent editors like me might avoid falling into this trap. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You were blocked for sock or meat puppetry, per the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kernow. Jehochman Talk 16:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
yes, and what i've been trying to tell you is that the "evidence" on that ssp is ridiculous. the only "evidence" there is that i tried to add a kerrang interview to the article as a reference, and that i didn't happen to edit at the same time as another user who lives on the other side of the world. all of this "evidence" was posted by a user with over a dozen blocks for harassment and being disruptive and a clear agenda against this article. i really don't think you've looked into this at all, you just bought what he said in the ssp and blocked me. most of what he says is complete nonsense. he descibes the metro and canadian press articles as "obviously self-promoting and non-independant sources" and the candian press article as a "very dubsious interview". he also accused me of adding various things which i did not add, and some of the things that i did add he then edited the article to make it appear unsourced. the only one of my diffs he links to is my first edit relating to this article which doesn't support any of the accusations he then makes. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Haywood and his meatpuppets have wasted enough of Wikipedia's time with this tiresome campaign and the endless wikilawyering. Your edit history consists of nothing but minor edits to various articles and an inordinate concentration of Game and Haywood related topics. There's no reason to continue this discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

new section

hi again. i've been away with family for a few days so i've had some time to calm down. sorry for getting angry before, i was really upset and felt like i was being ganged up on and that nobody was listening to me. i've really been trying to figure out what's best to do here. everyone involved seems to argue it's so obvious i'm a puppet of haywood because of the evidence at the ssp, but all that the evidence shows is that i took an interest in his article. i don't dispute that, but i have already explained how and why i came to edit his article. in fact it's even explained in my very first edit related to this article. i've tried to point out that this interest isn't really evidence of puppetry at all and that none of my edits have been malicious, but nobody responds to my concerns or they just come back with more accusations or call me a duck. nobody has referred to any of my edits that support the ssp accusation. the reason i brought up outing is that haywood sounds like a potentially dangerous guy to be associated with, and where i'm staying and with a family as strict as mine the last thing i want is something silly he does to end up being linked to me. so i guess my point is that all the evidence shows is that i edited his article, but not in a disruptive or biased way. can someone please help. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Haywood is incredibly dangerous. He and his friends have the power of wasting large amounts of other people's time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
well obviously you find this situation very entertaining but i'd be grateful if you could refrain from unhelpful comments like this please. i'm trying to sort out some quite serious issues. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
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).

Jessi1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have been blocked as a sockpuppet of the real life person jonty haywood based on the evidence presented at "Suspected sock puppets/Kernow", which shows that i have recently made some contributions to the jonty haywood article. these edits were all reliably sourced, not disruptive or irrational, and made in good faith as what i felt were genuine improvements to the article. my edit history clearly shows how i ended up getting involved with this article and a look at my contributions shows that i am not a wp:SPA. a brief glance at my recent edits will show quite a few made to this article and its talk page but please bear in mind that i have limited time to edit wikipedia each day and that much of my editing in the last month was taken up by this topic because my edits there were met with a lot of hostility. it took quite a bit of discussion to figure out what the problems were and to work things out with the other editors. i believe i have made a positive contribution and that the article is now in a much better state than when i came across it. i am making this unblock request because i have been blocked without good cause, because the evidence in the ssp does not support the claim that i am a sockpuppet, and because i really want to continue contributing to wikipedia. if you have any further questions please feel free to ask me here. thank you for your time and happy new year. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The SSP was pretty damning. You are either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. — Smashvilletalk 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

please could you elaborate on why you feel it's so damning? the only actual diff of mine that the ssp refers to is my second edit to the article talk page, this one, and the rest of the ssp has been heavily embellished to make it sound "damning". i mean take the first sentence for example. as user:kernow's talk page, linked to in the ssp, showed before the blocking admin wiped it, he was not blocked for spamming his website, he was blocked for sockpuppetry but then unblocked after three admins concluded that he was not guilty of sockpuppetry. he has now been reblocked due to this ssp even though he doesn't seem to have edited wikipedia for ages. as i said in my request, although some of the evidence in the ssp isn't untrue as such, it is written in a very biased way. i have indeed edited this article, but none of my edits were "unsupported" as the ssp claims. and look at the other "sockpuppet" whom i have been involved in a "concerted campaign" with, timing our edits so precisely... he has been found to not be a sockpuppet and has been unblocked. if you look into the evidence for yourself (beyond what is written in the ssp) i think you will agree that it does not support sockpupptry. please could you take another look, bearing the above in mind? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Haywood was reblocked along with the other accounts because of an obvious campaign to promote himself and his website. As Smashville, the evidence is indeed damning. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

help please

{{adminhelp}} i'm looking for some advice from experienced (uninvolved) admins. i was blocked indefinitely after being wrongly identified as a sockpuppet. the ssp evidence that lead to my blocking was factually inaccurate (and supported by no relevant diffs) but was made to look very convincing. i've tried two unblock requests, but in both cases they were declined within minutes, and the declining admins seem to have only read the ssp, but not checked to verify the evidence there. i'm trying to find someone who has time to look into it more thoroughly (looking at the actual edit histories and other details shows that the information in the ssp is misleading) but i'm not sure where to go. since i'm blocked i can't post in any of the usual places that i'd go for help. should i make another unblock request? or is there someone i should contact first? i've already tried emailing the second declining admin but haven't had a reply. thanks very much for your help Jessi1989 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your response to Jehochman's question here? Euryalus (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. The concerns with this account relate to its editing of Jonty Haywood, his websites and hoaxes, and related matters. If the user agrees to avoid these topics, they can be unblocked. The remaining 99.999%+ of Wikipedia is available for editing. Jehochman Talk 22:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
hey, sorry, i hadn't noticed jehochman's question there, i think he must have posted it at the same time as blocking me. to answer his questions:
i'm ok with avoiding editing the jonty haywood article, as i said i only got so heavily involved because of the hoops i was made to jump through after trying to add a few pieces of sourced information. i won't pretend to be happy about getting banned from a subject but if it's that or indefinite blocking i'll choose the former please. about his website, i never added external links to haywood's site anywhere, all i did was reference a radio interview recording that is hosted there. this was approved by an admin who whitelisted it. if you insist then i'll avoid mentioning his site again. as for collusion with kernow well, again, i never colluded with him in the first place. i don't think i've ever edited the same articles as him. so i'm fine to further avoid anything he's involved in. it maybe slightly harder to avoid collusion with user:jessi1989 though ;)
anyway, in the meantime i'm still unclear as to exactly why i'm being barred from this subject. as i've said above, all of my edits were sourced and made in good faith. i still believe that these edits have genuinely improved the article, and nobody has referred me to any of my edits that they think unsuitable. wouldn't a better solution be for you to explain which of my edits have lead to this, and then i can avoid making the same mistakes again? jehochman says i was having difficulties editing this article, but the difficulties were actually with one user who kept reverting all my edits, either saying "unsourced" when they were sourced, or giving silly reasons like telling me i had to write it like this: "in source X, claim X was made. in source Y, claim Y was made". then after i pointed out how silly this would sound, he filed the ssp. the article remains much as i left it, including all the sourced and relevant information that i added from several reliable sources. user:ohnoitsjamie even stated on the article talk page that the page was acceptable bar one line (which i didn't add). i was the one who then fixed that line. like i say, if some of my edits were unsuitable, can't you point these out to me so i that can learn from my mistakes, then i hope a subject ban will not be necessary. thank you for getting back to me so fast Jessi1989 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. The Jonty Haywood article is like a minefield, a bad place for a new editor to get started. After you have more experience you may have more success editing there. My understanding is that you will avoid that article completely, at least until you become very familiar with Wikipedia's verifiability standards and other policies. If you do want to edit there, I strongly recommend you get help from an experienced editor to review proposed edits to make sure they comply with Wikipedia's standards. As I said, that article has problems and we have evidence that the subject has been using Wikipedia to make himself famous. There is a strong appearance that the subject and his friends have been editing the article. Please don't get caught up in any sort of controversy there. Jehochman Talk 14:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
ok, thank you very much! i will make sure to ask for advice before making any edits to the haywood article from now on. when you have time, do you think you could point out some examples of where i actually went wrong? i don't want to end up in this situation again, and i'm still kind of confused about how i ended up here in the first place (i thought i had an ok understanding of verifiability etc). anyway thanks again Jessi1989 (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jessi1989/Archive_1&oldid=1143084713"