User talk:JayJasper

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

revert of the removal of a mistake

Just a courteous note: I noticed another editor actually reverted an revert you made of what appears to be an editorializing attempt, in addition to introducing two formatting mistakes. That revert appears to have convinced you that the original edit was correct; unfortunately it isn't. While the statement is true, note the section in which this sentence appears. This is not only an unsourced WP:OR about whether a third-party candidate spoiled the election by affecting the electoral votes outcome in 2000 (still a highly contentious issue), but is in fact patently illogical as it cites a simple fact about the popular vote total that has nothing to do with the electoral votes outcome. I've helped you remove the original edit again. (also note that based on editing interests, I'm pretty sure the other user is in fact the same person as the IP address who made the original edit.) 73.114.34.143 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, and making the revert. I had reverted the OR statement a second time but missed that it had been added back yet again. The notification is appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JayJasper. 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 may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sockpuppetry by JayJasper. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Although I am not particularly savvy when it comes to CheckUser, I am aware that is considered highly reliable by those able to use it knowledgably, and that being identified by the system as a sock puppeteer puts one in the position of presumed guilt. Acknowledging the difficulty in having to prove a negative, I would like to put forward a few points for consideration when weighing the allegations against me.

• Looking through the edit histories of my alleged socks, I calculated well more than 7,000 edits overall. It would take an impressive effort to accumulate that number in addition to the thousands of edits I typically compile on an annual basis. Simply put, it would require way more time than I actually have in a day, given that I work daily in addition to online activities like Wikipedia.
• If there is a way to determine if more than one editor has edited simultaneously in the same time frame, it would not be surprising to discover that I have edited alongside some of my alleged socks in a time frame that in which it would be difficult, if not impossible, to be operating multiple accounts at the same time.
• While nearly all the alleged socks have edited topics similar to those that I have edited, particularly subjects related to US politics, each one has also edited topics decidedly different than the topics I typically work on. For example, at least one seems to have a fascination with conspiracy theories & related subjects, while another seems to drawn to computer technology and the like. These are not subjects that hold a great deal of interest to me and would not be topics I would put time and effort into editing.
• Each alleged sock seemingly has a different writing/conversational style in talk page discussions and/or edit summaries.
• It should be noted that a good portion of my editing, particularly during the past 2-3 years, has been done on public access computers. I know for a fact I am not the only person who edits Wikipedia in the venues I frequent, which have a shared IP address. Yes, I know it is unlikely that 14 or more people (the number of my alleged socks) will be editing in the same venue, particularly those with at least partially common interests in topics for editing. Nevertheless, Shared IP addresses should always be given due and diligent consideration in sockpuppet allegations.

I trust that all of the above points will be given serious consideration by the ruling administrator and anyone else to whom it may concern. If, after careful consideration, you decide that I am worthy of being given at least the benefit of doubt in my contention of not being the sockmaster I am alleged to be, you will have my highest gratitude. Should you choose to unblock me and allow me to continue in my enthusiastic efforts to improve Wikipedia, your decision will be rewarded with more focused and diligent efforts than ever before on my part. Because the privilege will most assuredly not be taken for granted.

Whatever you decide, I ask that you please take into account the decade of work I have put into Wikipedia: creating and cleaning up articles, constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects, adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. Thank you for your careful consideration.--JayJasper (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)