User talk:Mr. J. Lane

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. J. Lane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the historical record I'm noting that you have formerly edited using this IP: User talk:76.106.194.135 -- Brangifer (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR notice

Your recent editing history at Occupy Wall Street‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Threat to continue edit war by Mr. J. Lane.The discussion is about the topic Occupy Wall Street. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

You have been blocked 1 week for edit warring on both Occupy Wall Street and Talk:Occupy Wall Street. --MuZemike 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Appealing the Block

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).

Mr. J. Lane (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know what I did and I deeply apologize if you were or my fellow contributors were offended. I was just providing templates for the article because the article is in need for crucial improvement. The writing style presented throughout is out right horrendous and does not fit the standards of Wikipedia by any means; there is a bias presented throughout the article that violates WP:NPOV, it's clear if one actually reads through the entire article and not skimming through it. The talk page is too cluttered with templates to the extent, it's difficult to scroll down or somewhat time consuming to even bother to scroll down. Most of the recent sections are months old and there is only two active ones, including mine. I know what I did wrong and it can be difficult to deal some people, especially since there's no central authority on this site to report users to. There is rarely any list of administrators that, in my humble opinion, that are of worth since they're chosen based off popularity from what I read outside of Wikipedia.org. I hope you take this consideration to unblock me because I'm terribly sorry if I offended you or my fellow contributors. :)

Decline reason:

This apology sounds completely insincere, and considering that the creation of the account follows on the heels of the block of 76.106.194.135 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS), blocked for the same kinds of edits, there is no reason to consider this acceptable. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2012 (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).

Mr. J. Lane (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In all respect, I'd recommend that you investigate the case first before you get quick to deny somebody's block. Thank you. I'm not going to cater to you, anymore because what I've stated before was sincere and coming from my heart. I'm disgusted that you feel that it wasn't. Sorry, but I'm speaking my mind and I have the right to speak my mind. :)

Decline reason:

I've reviewed your edits, and you have clearly been edit warring. This appears to be a repeated pattern, as you have been blocked under an IP and as User:CentristFiasco. I see no reason to remove the block; frankly, the length was generous considering your past disruptive behavior. Apologies lose their effectiveness after multiple opportunities have been squandered. Kuru (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (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.

Lane, it may have been sincere, but it revealed a serious lack of personal insight, which is very natural considering your age and lack of real world experience, as well as your gross lack of understanding of our policies. You simply have an overly-inflated opinion of yourself and your abilities. If you expect to survive here, you need to listen to what other, much more experienced, editors tell you, and then heed them, even if you don't agree or feel like it. You need to learn how to edit an encyclopedia. This isn't a free web hosting service for you to use to create your own articles. You can do that on your own time, but not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're entirely misunderstood my contributions and my abilities. Mr. J. Lane (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It's pretty obvious to anyone who's critically thinking that you're also 76.106.194.135. You admitted to editing a few days ago and getting blocked for edit warring, and that you were also CentristFiasco, who hasn't editted this year. You have a longstanding problem with POV-pushing, edit warring, and sockpuppetry. If I run across you mucking up again, I will not assume good faith, because you should know better by now. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Wikipedia Policies all too well and to be perfectly honest with you, I've been here for two Years. Why do I consistency disobey them? They're merely a joke and fascist in nature, that's why. I thought I could try the whole consensus bullshit out for once by speaking calmly to fellow contributors but apparently, all I got for mass reverts with no real explanation on why and complete falsehoods on what an encyclopedia is suppose to be and what it's meant to be. I'm officially done with this site, for good. Cya. Mr. J. Lane (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will take you at your word. I'm sure your will find a community somewhere more tolerant of your collaborative skills. Kuru (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4chan's /b/ section doesn't have rules, and are quite concerned with the truth about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Maybe they'll enjoy his company. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you cannot respond there, because you are blocked. If you wish to have a response posted there, you are welcome to post it here and, if it is straightforward and appears as if it may be persuasive, somebody will then copy it there for you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plead guilty, sir. I highly recommend that you remove all the evidence, including my accounts and ban my I.P. address and the ranges. I'll take full responsibility for my actions. Thank you for your investigation.

Mr. J. Lane (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to block Lane's access to his own page?

Might this be a good idea since he obviously isn't behaving in a collaborative manner? He repeatedly uses his talk page to revise others edits, which is just another continuation of his battlefield modus operandi. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I'd noticed this and was considering acting on it just before you posted this message.

Done. -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]