User talk:Jsecure

Welcome

Hello, Jsecure, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Archie Mitchell have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Frickative 16:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of UltraStream for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article UltraStream, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UltraStream until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jsecure, unfortunately I've learned during the period of my involvement with Wikipedia that there are quite a lot of people who jump in to enforce "rules" in the way that kids with nothing better to do use an aerosol can to make a place feel like their own space. As I understand it Wikipedia was intended to be a place where anyone could bring anything that was useful as long as it didn't cause trouble. Some reasonable guidelines have been turned into aerosol cans.

It's not worth getting too upset, they don't really care, they just interpret it as you not understanding their rules, and there are enough of them to make it exhausting trying to battle with them. Wikipedia isn't the open access encyclopedia it's supposed to be. But even hamstringed it's still something very positive and there are enough encouraging people around to ensure that the rule bullies don't kill off everybody's hard work and enthusiasm. I'm afraid you just have to find a way to be patient and sail with the wind for the time being. Give UltraStream a while to acquire some more credentials that'll give it the right to Wikipedia status that such encyclopaedic notables as the Pikachu characters enjoy. Then you can come back and rebuild - keep what you've done saved somewhere. Opbeith (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something that might be worth doing, even if you know it may not save the article as it is, is to anchor it more in the real world. For example, provide some biographical data about the service - like the date of launch, for example, persons involved, landmarks. Those things are reasonable to ask for, in addition to the descriptive information you've provided. Also you yourself shouldn't claim that UltrStream is notable for something without providing a "third party" source. There's more chance of saving an article by enhancing the article than bymaking an argument in principle, even if in the end - as has happened to me - the work is all for nothing anyway.Opbeith (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwell (retailer) - Neutrality

This Dwell (retailer) article has been tagged for some time as containing non neutral content. The only user to tag it as such is Trident13, who must see some such content within the article. I propose we remove the tag as all the article content is neutral. In order to make a better article, might user Trident13 step forward and give an example of those parts of the article which demonstrate bias, and those segments may be debated here. Jsecure (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was applied in light of the edits by both 81.100.64.222 and Jsecure, who have highly similar edit record and positions with regards this article. Can you please state your relationship to the retailer Jsecure for clarity? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jsecure for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the functionaries email list. TN X Man 14:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Block

Note, this account has currently been blocked in violation of the guidelines on Wikipedia, relating to socketpuppetry. They state an account and/or IP may be blocked for socketpuppetry if two or more accounts have been involved in vandalism etc. This account has not been involved in vandalism. To be blocked for socketpuppetry, it must have been involved in vandalism along with another account. The administrator who blocked this account did so without complying with the written rules of the Wikipedia community, as written on Wikipedia itself.

Please refer here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims for the exact wording which states two or more accounts must be involved in vandalism, before an account can be blocked.

User Tnxman307 has blocked this account as a wildcat block which does not comply with Wikipedia's terms, rules and/or community guidelines.Jsecure (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further note; if administrators or other members of the community do not wish to comply with the written guidelines for how blocks should be applied in cases of socketpuppetry, said guidelines should be rewritten or deleted.Jsecure (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

User was blocked following accusation of socketpuppetry, but evidence does not meet criteria for block

Decline reason:

Evading your block is grounds for any account or IP you use to be blocked as well until your block has been lifted. This is a checkuser block which means that you are either evading a block or breaching the sockpuppetry policy. Please read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, bullet three. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:43, 10 December 2010 (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.