User talk:JMB1980

Welcome![edit]

Hello, JMB1980, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Glenn Helzer has been accepted[edit]

Glenn Helzer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Chevvin 03:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Glenn Helzer) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Glenn Helzer.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Glenn Helzer.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, JMB1980

Thank you for creating Brandon Pettit.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs[edit]

Hello, JMB1980,

You tagged Mark Tinley for a deletion discussion at AFD but you didn't post a notification on the talk page of the article creator. This is part of the deletion process for all types of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). Most editors take care of this by using Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. This is a very helpful, user-friendly editing tool. Just set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then Twinkle will post these notices for you on the proper talk page. I highly recommend you try out Twinkle, it basically has all of the templates you might need so that you don't have to remember them or go looking for them. Give it a try! Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JMB1980. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Mz7 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2023 (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).

JMB1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This computer is used by multiple people. There are no instances of sockpuppetry or abuse of multiple accounts, as there are no overlapping edits with the other account mentioned. As can be seen in the accusation that launched the investigation, this editor seems to have some sort of grudge against me, possibly because I nominated for deletion some articles this editor may have written or contributed to, and always votes to keep any article that I nominate for deletion. Wikipedia policy on multiple accounts states 'multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests, cast votes, or engage in edit warring'. The other account(s) on this computer did not comment on proposals or requests I made, cast votes on anything I did or engage in edit warring over any of my edits. While there may be multiple accounts on this computer, there is no abuse of multiple accounts. JMB1980 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below and as per the SPI, this is not accurate. Yamla (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2023 (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.

Hello, JMB1980,

There is pretty convincing evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JMB1980. Do you have any logical explanation for it all? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for what exactly? There are no overlaps in edits or conflicts of interests of any kind. JMB1980 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not accurate, from the SPI summary: "Beccaynr has painted a compelling picture of using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. In particular, the two accounts share the same focus in nominating autism-related articles for deletion, often repeating the same arguments, and on at least one occasion, this user used one account to support an AfD, and when it later closed as "no consensus", the user used the other account to re-nominate the article for deletion (see Beccaynr's comment dated 23:05, 26 June 2023 above)". 331dot (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]