User talk:JAMMER77777

October 2018

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Kings Food Markets, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have inserted the same unencyclopedic, derogatory paragraph well over three times, under this user name and presumably IPs 173.241.189.73 and 67.86.216.225. Among other issues, this is a violation of the 3 revert rule. You have not tried to discuss on the talk page. Please stop. David Brooks (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing true information that keeps getting deleted. I stand by what I wrote — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAMMER77777 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for responding. A basic tenet of Wikipedia is that merely being true is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. A fact must be verifiable and encyclopedic. For a readable summary, see the essay Wikipedia:But it's true!. The fundamental policies, but a longer read, are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. The idea of encyclopedic is less formal, but is intended to exclude ephemeral trivia; in addition, disparaging personal remarks are discouraged. I hope this helps you understand the deletions. David Brooks (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I understand what you wrote, but nothing I added was disparaging, or attacking anyone personally in any way. I am familiar with some of the key management personnel of this company, and This Knowledge is encyclopedic and important in an article about this company. I did not intend in any way to disparage anyone, and in fact, my additions were quite complimentary to the individuals mentioned.

I appreciate your replying, but you haven't addressed my main point. I think it would be helpful to read the essay and the policies; also, given what you say, look at Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. I skimmed through those articles as they were rather long. Again, I don't think there is very much controversial about listing a few key members of their corporate management, and a complimentary word or 2 about some innovate policies they have developed.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Hut 8.5 20:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since apparently all you're interested in doing here is adding this inappropriate content I've blocked you from editing. Hut 8.5 20:43, 22 October 2018 (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).

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong. What gives you (a random Wiki user) anymore authority than me? I should block you. I stand by what I did and demand to be unblocked from making edits. Those edits will be made. Trust me. JAMMER77777 (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will not be allowed to make your inappropriate edits that are clear violations of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. If necessary, the page will be protected from editing. As you don't feel that you did anything wrong, I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2018 (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.

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).

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You are wrong and I want to appeal this. What authority do you have, if I may ask? Aren't all Wiki users equal, as this website is crowd-sourced? You are no different than me, in regards to your level of authority on this or any other page. JAMMER77777 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

-- Dlohcierekim  (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Addendum in no particular order: WP:IDNHT, WP:EW, Wikipedia:UNSOURCED and Possible WP:CIR-- Dlohcierekim  (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2018 (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.

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).

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As there was nothing blockworthy, I should be unblocked so I can continue to edit as I please. DO IT NOW. JAMMER77777 (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you have not made any attempt to address the issues that led to the block over the course of three unblock appeals, I have revoked your ability to edit this page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:54, 25 October 2018 (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.

Since you asked

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators--

again, in no particular or.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, nobody freaking cares that some computer nerds got a little "honorary" title LOL. In WIKI, there are no administrators. Everyone and their cousin is an administrator because anyone can do anything.

Well, actually my knowledge of computers falls quite short of what would qualify someone as a "nerd". I do have three extra buttons, though. And the title is far from honorary; it means I decide whether or not to unblock you. (one of the aforementioned buttons, you know.) Guess how I've decided? At any rate, please read the WP:GAB. There are still alternatives for you if no geeky nerds decide to unblock you.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that all users are "equal", but it is not true that "anyone can do anything" The community has chosen to give some "buttons" to a limited number of trusted users as it would be irresponsible and chaotic to allow all users(for example) to block and unblock users, or to delete pages. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23068 was submitted on Oct 29, 2018 06:17:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have rev-deleted the offending edits under WP:RD2, as they were clearly derogatory accusations against named individuals. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23074 was submitted on Oct 29, 2018 19:31:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23079 was submitted on Oct 30, 2018 07:18:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JAMMER77777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23087 was submitted on Oct 30, 2018 19:38:27. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]