User talk:Jg9443

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

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jg9443, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Edit page rise against, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Edit page rise against[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Edit page rise against requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Edit rise against[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Edit rise against requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

If you do any more edit warring, or editing against consensus, you will be blocked from editing. You need to attempt to formulate a logical rationale on the talk page, and convince others of it, before making changes. Final warning. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, leave my talk page alone. Your pathetic threats to keep changing the page will only put you in deeper strife. Do as Serge (and everyone else) says. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you refused to listen to me, and instead kept edit warring against consensus. So you are now blocked for 3 days. If you do this again after you return from your block, then next block will be much longer. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015[edit]

Anymore personal attacks will get you blocked again. No name-calling. You don't need to get upset with that other editor, neither one of you are anywhere close to a valid argument. Sergecross73 msg me 23:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Rather than leave your imprint on other pages that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand, keep the discussion at the appropriate talk page, and if you can't discuss properly, your proposal will be ignored. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Rise Against. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Yes, we know what you think. But that's not what talk pages are for. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Killswitch Engage may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • REMOVE GENRES — YOUR EDIT WILL BE REVERTED (unless the genre is properly cited)--->[[Metalcore]], [[Heavy Metal music|heavy metal[],[[Mathcore]] [[Hardcore punk]]</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://
  • |url={{Allmusic|class=album|id=r690951|pure_url=yes}} |title=allmusic ((( The End of Heartache > Review ))) |publisher=[[AllMusic]] |last=Rivadavia |first=Eduardo |accessdate=2010-01-04}}</ref><

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

So, I think I've been pretty clear in informing you that you need to present sources when adding new content, especially music genre. And yet, here you are, adding genre without new sources. Any more of this and you're going to be blocked again. Seriously, learn how to add references to articles. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click on any of these blue words you're reading right now. It will take you to the page that teaches editors how to add references. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced genres. You've had this explained to you on multiple talks pages by multiple editors. Continuing to genre war like this could result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You are blocked from editing for 1 month. I have informed you countless times, and linked you to every single help section for using references, and yet you still make unsourced changes to genre, and continue to propose every all sorts of invalid reasons for changing genre except for due to it being according to sources.

I'm very concerned that you haven't even attempted to use sources even once. Its one thing to not know how to add them, but you haven't once even discussed them. You don't seem to even be willing or able to answer even simple questions I pose to you. Your next block may be indefinite, as I don't believe you're ready to be editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because you were given a last warning to not add/change genre without adding a source. Then you added/changed genre at Killswitch Engage. That is why you were (rightfully) blocked. I've been lecturing you on this for months now, you really should understand this by now, and yet you still seem clueless. If you need help on this, ask about it, but if you just go and add/change genre without a source again, you're blocked indefinitely. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked you for this edit and this edit. Where did you add a source exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 23:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you're trying to say, but my links above show concretely that you changed genre without adding a source, which you were warned many times not to do. If you do it again, you're blocked again, its as simple as that. If you still don't understand how to add references, read through WP:REFB again. If you can't understand all of this, then I'm not sure you're ready to be editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

Here is how you should go about adding/changing music genre on Wikipedia

I'll use an example of a band I've been working on lately - Third Eye Blind. I feel they could be called alternative rock. Here's how I would go about adding the genre of alternative rock to their article:

  1. I search for a source that backs up this claim. Do this by doing a Google search, like this.
  2. Search through the results to find a source that directly calls them this.
  3. After searching, I come to this source: http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/third_eye_blind_release_video_for_get_me_out_of_here - it directly calls them "alt-rockers", which can only really refer to the genre of alternative rock. Also, I note that "Altpress" is a website considered reliable on Wikipedia. See a list of usuable/unusable sources at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.
  4. Then I would go to the Third Eye Blind page, and make this exact edit. The exact text I'd add is:
    [[Alternative rock]],<ref>http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/third_eye_blind_release_video_for_get_me_out_of_here</ref>

That's how you do it. The source should directly and literally back the genre added. You cannot give Youtube link and say things like "Come on, listen to it, it's clearly a certain genre". That is original research and is not allowed. The source must say it directly, as in my example above. If you cannot find a genre that directly backs it, then you should not add the genre.

Let me know if you have any questions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the example I gave you? Does the source literally and directly call them the genre? Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you give me a direct quote of the part of the source that literally calls them a certain genre? Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, please, would you finally start providing some actual sources that can be verified? Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How we're proceeding/Last chance[edit]

Alright, I'm glad you've made a tiny bit of progress on figuring out how to find usable sources. I hope you can put it into good use. That being said, you've got to stop pestering people with these weird proposals "if you switch genre on regular Wikipedia, then I'll change it over at Simple Wikipedia". It doesn't make sense. These two version of Wikipedia run independently of one another. Editors here generally don't have an interest in what it reads like there. It's not a good "bargaining method, and it is not a way of handling conflicts on Wikipedia. You need to drop this approach.

So, I've done all I can to teach Wikipedia's ways. If you do not understand now, I don't know how to be any more clear. Rather than continuing these discussion on my talk page, I've made a new discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rise_Against#Primary_genre_discussion - if substantially more sources are found for punk rock, the genre will be changed. If more are found for hardcore, or its a tie, then it will stay hardcore. Please present as many reliable sources as you can there. After a week has passed, a call will be made on it, and then we're going to drop it for the foreseeable future.

I need you to stay on topic, and discuss sources.

  1. If you start proposing arguments that are not related to sources, you will receive two warnings, and then be blocked upon the third occurrence.
  2. If you start proposing bizarre compromises, or baseless requests to "just change it", you'll receive two warnings, and then be blocked upon the third occurrence

Let me know if you have any questions. Otherwise, all other discussion should be at the Rise Against talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

  • Alright, you've got two strikes against you, as you've made two comments now that fall under "baseless requests". Here is the first and here is the second. I've already outlined how you need to prove your point, and yet you're wasting people's time with these invalid requests. One more, and I'm blocking you, as these edits are becoming disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK how do i prove my point which sources should i go to?Jg9443 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, this is your third violation of hounding people and making baseless requests instead of providing sources. I gave you a last chance, while telling you things you must not do, and you've now violated it 3 times. You will be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for 3 months due to disruptive editing. I have gone out of my way for days and weeks to help you constructively contribute to Wikipedia, and you are still not doing so.

  • I instructed you how to add sources, yet you have still not added one yet.
  • I set up a discussion for you to prove your point by listing off a lot of instructions, yet after 24 hours, you've made countless edits without actually listing any reliable sources.
  • I gave you conditions, such as to stop hounding people and baselessly asking them to make edits for you, and you have not stopped, despite giving you 3 chances.

I'm sorry, but you're just not ready to be editing Wikipedia. You are blocked for 3 months. If you decide to come back in three months, you need to follow the rules and instructions given to you in handling conflicts. Otherwise, the next block on this account will be forever. Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another final warning[edit]

Yet again, we've informed you what you have to do to prove your arguments, and you have failed to do so. It's basic stuff, and yet you're still not making any progress. I really can't break it down any simpler:

  1. Provide sources for genre.
  2. Provide a lot of sources to demonstrate a primary genre.
  3. Use sources like what is listed as acceptable at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES - well known websites with content written by actual journalists.

Any more responses that aren't in regards to the above, or asking how to do the above, is going to lead to a WP:COMPETENCE block. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance[edit]

Okay, it seems that after about 36 hours and countless attempts, you've failed to provide a single valid reference for your argument. You seem to struggle even with giving functioning links to articles. Its clear you're not ready to make a Wikipedia policy-based argument towards your stance. I'm holding off on blocking you again only so that you may have the chance to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia further. If you commit to dropping all your arguments about genre, and work on doing Wikipedia training, I won't block you. If you start up any more discussions regarding genre, they are going to be deemed disruptive editing, and you will be blocked from editing.

As far as the training goes, you should try to learn how to edit Wikipedia much better. See things like:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure
  2. The basic principles of Wikipedia
  3. How to add a reference.
  4. Here is somewhere you can do test edits in as well.

For now, you may edit in your efforts to try to understand how Wikipedia works, but again, any edits involving changing genre, or discussing editing genre, will get you blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Jg9443! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:02, Friday, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

Hi Jg9443! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 21:07, Friday, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

i got it[edit]

i got it but i am almost done with the missions.Jg9443 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, take a few weeks to take it all in. Maybe edit some areas not related to music genre too, to take a break from it. For practice - because you're not going to get any more second chances on this. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i will try extra hard thanks.Jg9443 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i am really learning something one question and one question only when i learn how to edit and learn to preset evidence relating to the fact rise against is punk rock proving my point would you change if i"ll give right the source yes or no ?Jg9443 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you created a convincing, policy based argument with a ton of reliable sources that showed that punk rock is overwhelmingly used more often than other genre, then it could happen. But youve come nowhere near that in all of your time here, so that's why I'm saying you need to study and practice a long time before even attempting. I honestly wish you'd focus on something more important, considering punk rock is already present in multiple parts of the article. In my opinion, your whole obsession with this is a waste of time, which is why you'll be blocked if you waste the communities time with any more invalid attempts to prove your point. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished[edit]

i realy took my time and i am finaly done so this remains am i ready to present evidence already you think?Jg9443 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you make some policy-approved edits elsewhere first. Maybe there's a television show/movie/book/video game of interest you could contribute to? Sergecross73 msg me 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all do respect i would do that but my goal is to prove my argument that rise against fully punk rock and when i am done with that that yeah but as of right now i am doing music genre that is my main topic right now and did say i was going to give tons of sources that proves it.Jg9443 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you start a new discussion and do any of the below, you're going to be blocked for disruptive editing.
  1. You can't provide an invalid reason you've been warned about in the past.
  2. You can't provide a source outside of one found at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES since you still can't seem to identify a reliable source by yourself.
  3. You can't provide a link to a source that does not work, or doesn't link to the content you're referring to.
These are the absolute basics. If you can't do this after many months of instructions, you're not ready for Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

got it.Jg9443 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you before i do so can i give my number because i am tired of meeting like so i want to talk to you in person via cell phone what do say yes or no?Jg9443 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't give my phone number out on Wikioedia, nor is there any need to, you can ask me questions just fine here on your talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 11:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but Wikipedia talk pages are only for discussing how to edit/improve articles, not for random questions and musings. Sergecross73 msg me 05:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i was just asking because i couldn't compare witch is killswitch engage simalar to meaning more compable to either cro mags or agnostic front that was my question.Jg9443 (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question can i use you tube i know that have get evidence where you want me get them but does you tube count because it has more evidence then the sources?Jg9443 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an official Youtube account of a reliable source, like say, Loudwire or Blabbermouth, then yes, it would be usable. But if it's the Youtube account of just a random person on the internet (like just some guy named "UltimateFrank47" or something like that), then no, it is definitely not usable. Like explained before, it should be from a music journalist that is putting out their information through a reputable website, where they have an editor looking over their work, not just some random nobody posting their thoughts on Youtube. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you know want if you get my point about this website i"ll apereciate it because i have having a bit trouble how to link in to things for some reason i forgot if you mind can you help me with it ?Jg9443 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

  • It's now been six months, and I think you've still yet to actually present a working link to a reliable source. I've worked with you for months, and given you countless final chances, but it seems you're just not ready for editing Wikipedia. Your block is for 6 months. Perhaps by then you'll have the computer skills, writing skills, and knowledge of the website necessary to constructively contribute to the website. Sadly, you are not there yet. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

look dude i"m sorry is that i"m very stubborn i"v been trying realy hard is just wants to i"m sorry .Jg9443 (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only gave you that last chance on the grounds that you'd learn the basics, take some time to learn how to do basic things like copy/pasting links, understand what reliable sources are, etc. You refused, even despite me telling you that you were not allowed any more basic mistakes. And what did you do? Right off the bat, you provided a link that didn't work, and another source that obviously isn't reliable or present at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES (the song lyrics website). You managed to violate your last chance twice in mere minutes. If you don't get it yet, I don't think you will any time soon. This, the block. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that if i follow the instructions you are giving me a really take time on it you"l unblock me?Jg9443 (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you already lost that chance. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK but is there anyway you can shave some likeJg9443 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC) about 2 months or 3?[reply]

unblocked request[edit]

OK i am really sorry is that i have a learning disability sometimes i don"t know how to do somethings crossing my heart and deep down i am really sorry i wont do it again i"ll even signed myself out.Jg9443 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unblocked request[edit]

Look i promise to control my self i promise to not make any edit i promise to make sure not to make another account if you block me i will obey all the policy"s scout honor i will be understanding with my edits and ill make to how to link in any evidence i promise.Jg9443 (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No way. I just caught you block evading today. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but that will be my last time i promise this time ill be respectfull of other people edits i will do things the right way.Jg9443 (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. People who get caught block evading usually get their block lengthened, not shortened. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

look i was not evading and on top of that i was not making any edits without permission this time i was just giving you want i thought about band articles just like gorila biscuts for example gorila biscuits is a new York based hardcore punk band.Jg9443 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you get blocked, create a new account, and make an edit, even if it's a comment on a talk page, that's block evasion. You don't have permission to edit anywhere on Wikipedia, under any name or IP address, until your block expires, which is like 5 months away. Your comment above is so similar to this edit that block evasion is confirmed. If I catch you making any more different user names, they will be blocked right away, and the ability to make comments on your talk page will be taken away too. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so that is a yes or a no ?Jg9443 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. Are you even reading what I'm saying? Everything I've said has been "no". Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what i can show something to see my promise i leave you guys alone i will not create another account i will you guys alone up to April 10.Jg9443 (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you messed up every time I gave you another chance, your only option is to wait for your 6 month block to expire. Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK OK how about put my block on may 1 is long but not to long it does both of us some favors.Jg9443 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does that make zero sense, considering it doesn't do me any sort of favor,and I already told you no, but since I've caught editing during your block again, I have switched your block to "indefinite". You are blocked from Wikipedia under any name or IP address. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unblocking request[edit]

I know that i have done some stupid things but when you ask why i been doing the things i have been doing because with rise against thats all over seen from documentry videos is a Chicago punk rock band or Chicago native punk rock band or even Chicago punk rock band look i deserve this being blocked yeah but can you at least shave up time to may 26 and can we compramise and talk.?Jg9443 (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just caught you creating a new account to edit yesterday. The standard offer is going 6 months without breaking any rules or block evading. You're a very long ways from ever being unblocked. (It doesn't help that you once again failed to show the most basic ability to edit while block evading either. You still presented links that didn't work and sources (lyric websites) that you've already been told are not usable on Wikipedia.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK but did it that for a reason because i thought blabbermouth was reliable resources i did know or i just was not listening or i just forgot your right i"m sorry with in the bottom of my heart.Jg9443 (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is reliable, but your link did not work. You failed to copy and paste a working link to a website yet again. Sergecross73 msg me 11:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

compramise[edit]

Can we at least compramise and come up with solution about the article that can help both of us.Jg9443 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, one of the main reasons you're blocked is because of your continued inability to properly discuss things. You still don't understand how the website works. And you still don't even know how to copy and paste a link to a website. This isn't going anywhere, there isn't anything left to discuss. I'm just about ready to remove your ability to write on your talk page. You need 6 months away from Wikipedia before you even think about coming back. Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no i mean compramising meaning like a deal even dispite it will help me more.Jg9443 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what there is left to discuss. Your block length is non-negotiable considering how many times I've caught you making new accounts to edit with while this account is blocked, and we're not going to discuss the Rise Against article when one of the main reasons you're blocked is because you shown you don't understand Wikipedia well enough to participate in constructive, policy based conversation. There is literally nothing left to discuss. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have an editor that i know that can share evidence and maybe you can help him in the mean time i"ll i do you a favor for once and leave forever.Jg9443 (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Talk page access revoked. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jg9443&oldid=1138971437"