Jack Paterno
November 2011
edit
Hello and welcome! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Wknight94. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, so thank you for taking the time to participate. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Nepotism with this edit, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions about editing, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Wknight94 talk 02:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Changing username
editChanging username can be done at WP:CHU. Wknight94 talk 22:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- It's a single one-line edit. Otherwise, you can create a new username. Let me know if you do and I will block this account since we ideally want one account per person. Wknight94 talk 22:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WJBscribe (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Barack Obama shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. WJBscribe (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I DID DISCUSS. THE TWO PEOPLE REMOVING STUFF DID NO DISCUSSION. THEY ARE REMOVING SOURCED MATERIAL. THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE DOING THIS VANDALISM. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, I WILL NOT EDIT IT BUT LET THE BULLIES AND VANDALS WIN. I AM SORRY THAT YOU ARE HELPING VANDALISM AND BULLYING. THIS IS NOT RIGHT BUT YOU WIN, I WILL LISTEN TO YOU. Jack Paterno (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
editIn light of the evidence that has been brought to my attention, I believe you are abusing multiple accounts and are the same user that was blocked pursuant to this investigation. Accordingly, I have blocked you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. WJBscribe (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Jack Paterno (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am falsely accused and blocked. I looked at the sockpuppet investigation and I am not listed. I am innocent. Please do not be secretive and submit a formal report. What I think is the problem is that I am making constructive suggestions to the Barack Obama article. I simply say that an obscure law that Obama signed is not important and other information that is important should be considered. I also note that whenever people like DD2K, Tarc, or Fat&Happy do not like people, they accuse them of being a sock. I am not a sock. If you accuse me of being a sock, then DD2K, Tarc, and Fat&Happy are all socks in that they support each other................ To the unblocking administrator: Note that I am reasonable. I said that I would let the discussion continue but would not be making anymore changes in the Barack Obama article. See how bad it makes Wikipedia look when I make reasonable suggestions and rather than discuss, they are so immature and yell "sock/block the person". If you are reasonable, you will unblock me and tell people to maturely discuss suggestions then cooperate. They did neither. I am will to do so.
Decline reason:
1) I don't believe you and 2) Under the infinitesimally slim chance you are telling the truth (which you're not), the fact is you are still being unbelievably belligerent and labeling other good faith editors as vandals (which they're not), etc. when you're the one edit warring and being incredibly rude. There is a good reason you're blocked, and just because you think you're showing up as another person that should change everything: it doesn't. If you're being a grade A jerk, then it doesn't matter who you are, you're going to get shut out of the community (see WP:DICK, which says something akin to "if a lot of people are telling you that you're being a dick, they probably have a point). I and other administrators will basically always decline any unblock request that makes personal attacks on other editors and shows no responsibility of one's own fault. See WP:GAB, which deals with all of that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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.
Jack Paterno (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Note that the blocking person says "I believe", not I have proof. This is very bad since it means that any ideas that WJBscribe has, he can do. If he thinks he doesn't like you, he can say "I believe" then kill you. I say kill because I am being blocked indefinitely. If you review my Barack Obama edits, you will see that I am entirely reasonable, not partisan, but good ideas. I am willing and have discussed ideas on the talk page. So please unblock
Decline reason:
One request at a time Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
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.