Jdogno5

Welcome!

Hello, Jdogno5, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Megatron (Transformers), but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Eddie Brock, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary is not a place to discuss content, but is used for summarizing the content of the edits. If you have questions concerning the reversions, please use the relevant talk pages to discuss, instead of reverting. Thank you. SudoGhost 09:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. You do not violate Wikipedia's policies on Original Research, Synthesis or Verfiability "to ask a question". If you want to ask a question, then you simply ask it. You can do this on article talk pages, or on the personal talk pages of individual editors you wish to communicate with, much as others have done right here.

As for which sources are appropriate, they are those that are generally considered to be credentialed, or have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For comics, examples would be sources such as Wizard magazine, Comics Buyer’s Guide, The Comics Journal, Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, books by analysts like Danny Fingeroth, interviews on DVDs of movies adapted from comics, as well as any mainstream press stories in publications like Time magazine, The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, etc. For a somewhat more in-depth explanation, my explanation to another editor here might be useful, as would Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources.

Also, please remember that articles are supposed to be summaries of the topic, and subsections more peripheral to the main sections even more so. Sections on appearances of a character in media other than in the one the character is mainly known to appear in should be summarized even more succinctly. Detailed blow-by-blows of the entire plot of a film that are not necessary for a reader's understanding of character's appearance in a film, for example, are not appropriate. In the case of Eddie Brock and \i{Spider-Man} three, more detail would probably be warranted in the article on that film. Nightscream (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Venom (comics)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Venom (comics). 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.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jdogno5. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

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 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) 01:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Abraxas, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing Lola Bunny

Woah, calm down there! What was all that about? Do you need any help? It looks to me as though you're trying to fix the article, but you keep undoing and redoing your own edits. Let me know on my talkpage if you need a hand. Yunshui (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Lola Bunny, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 15:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of Digimon Xros Wars characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fallen Angel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Supergirl: Wings, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deva and Possession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Heggra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. When you recently edited Ministry of Magic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Trials and Accused (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. When you recently edited On the Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mañana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fictional portrayals of psychopaths (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Responsibility, Sociopathy, Saviour, Malevolent and Ryuk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Scott Pilgrim characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Satmar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Demons and Norse mythology and legend

I have undone your edits adding Loki, Surtr, and Guðmundr to Category:European demons. While I appreciate your edit summaries and understand your thought process, this categorization is not reflected in the scholarly sources because it is alien to Norse mythology and to the Viking ethos, which includes among the heroes many characters one would not want to have to deal with in modern society. You are unconsciously drawing on your own religious and moral background rather than on the sources; unless the article refers to scholars characterizing a figure in this precise way, it's inaccurate to include them within the category. (In the case of Loki and Surtr, the nature of a jötunn often involves moral ambiguity or outright enmity against the gods; in the case of Guðmundr, Otto Höfler's theories of his origins are closer to a nature spirit or a Greek daimon than to what we mean in modern English by a demon, and in any event are theories of his origins; in the legends about him, he was a human king. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul

You've been reverted, discuss the changes you want on the talk page not the edit summaries.

Right now you are seriously disrupting the article just to get you preferred way.

J Greb (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Category: Fictional interdimensional beings

Hi, seems we have a bit of a disagreement over whether DN shinigami are interdimensional or not. Can I suggest that your category is misnamed, and would be better as e.g. [[Category: Fictional beings from parallel universes]] or similar? The shinigami *are* interdimensional, that's just fact; they come from a world which is not part of our physical universe. Vashti (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to keep you informed, I've put up a request to have the category renamed here. Vashti (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Loonatics Unleashed characters

By "speculative," I meant that you were speculating -- when you add things things like "and possibly Queen Ty'Rahnee," you're just guessing and have nothing specific to base that claim on. Statements without any basis shouldn't be added to articles. Trivialist (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But unless you have a source for that, you can't put it in an article. Trivialist (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The article was completely unreferenced and original research, so it didn't meet basic Wikipedia article standards. Trivialist (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can find references, sure. Though it might be better added to the main Loonatics Unleashed article, unless there's a lot of information. Trivialist (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young Dracula, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avenge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Batman & Robin (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] parks ([[Six Flags Great Adventure]], [[Six Flags Over Texas]], as well as [Six Flags St. Louis]]) all debuted coasters themed to the film (all of which have been either closed, or re-themed to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Original research and moving articles

This and this edit you made are unacceptable, like I noted here and here. You are not supposed to engage in WP:Original research (read that policy), which includes WP:SYNTHESIS, and you are not supposed to move articles based on faulty reasoning...such as "What if it's a woman? Then it would be a 'Goddess Complex'." Gods can also be women, though "the God" is generally considered to be male. Wikipedia has a title policy that it goes by; see Wikipedia:Article titles. One aspect of that policy is WP:Common name. Do I need experienced Wikipedia editors such as BD2412 to assist me in explaining that to you? And this revert you made was of course unwise, for reasons noted in these edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Batman supporting characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Killing Joke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Harry Potter

Your recent edits to Harry Potter (character) are being reverted because they're unsourced original research (mentioning his study habits is particularly unnecessary). Rowling already has discussed Harry's character flaws in the "Personality" section and as mentioned in the edit history, they do not need to be added a second time in there via a randomly tacked-on sentence, plus it's nothing more than your personal opinion on the topic. As for citations, the books are not a reliable source in determining Harry's personality traits because anyone can read them and draw their own conclusions about his behavior therein that may not be accurate and is based solely on their interpretation of the content. Accounts by Rowling herself or any notable figures connected to the series (books and films) in third-party sources are more appropriate. Believe me, I'm not here to start an edit war, but rules regarding addition of content need to be observed. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 06:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, Jdogno, and it's not about "conceding" anything, just working to resolve the matter. It's obvious that there was no malice behind your edits and it was in the name of trying to improve the article. Take care. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 02:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No prob. Keep on keepin' on. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 02:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at Space Jam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Space Jam, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see you have reverted again at Space Jam. This issue was raised at the Film project and you can find a fuller explanation for my revert at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia edition over at Space Jam. It would probably be better if you follow WP:BRD i.e. if someone reverts you it is better to resolve the issues through discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Space Jam. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Define Disruptive

Jdogno5 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit warring and inability to take it to the talk page before you actually did. And the inability to read the guidelines linked in three editors' edit descriptions to possibly see what you were doing that caused three editors to revert your additions. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well unless those three editors explain what they feel is wrong, how I am supposed to know what is wrong? Linking to guidelines without a clear explanation for how these guidelines are actually relevant doesn't help anybody.

Jdogno5 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Space Jam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Betty Logan (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested protection.

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Working to resolve that.

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ghostbusters, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I have started a discussion at Talk:Ghostbusters#Gozer demon-god edits to discuss you edits to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Space Jam. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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.
It is a very bad idea to revert almost immediately after coming back from a 31 hour block. If you revert again your next holiday will be a bit longer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring, as you did at Space Jam. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Congratulations, you have reverted yet again, less than 10 minutes after I gave you another warning. Learn what edit warring is, and discuss at the talk page (Space Jam), and try and realize that numerous editors have been trying to help you understand why such sections are considered unnecessary. If you are unable to do so, you may find yourself indefinitely blocked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam

You really do need to use the article's talk page to discuss things that have been reverted. People will explain the issues with your edit there. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see you resuming your edit-warring on this article rather than address our concerns. The incident has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ) once again. Betty Logan (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. From reviewing your editing history here, it is apparent that you are unable to edit Wikipedia properly. If, in several years, you believe that you have matured sufficiently to edit here, you should consider requesting an unblock at that time. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kww(talk) 04:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

04:39, 24 March 2014 Kww (talk | contribs) blocked Jdogno5 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Edit warring)

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).

Jdogno5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been merely trying to understand what is wrong with the edits that I have recently done that have been reverted. After all for "Devil in popular culture" I have asked what is wrong with my edit and still not received an answer. My last request for an explanation was posted on the talk page of the one who reverted it last. At most I only reverted the article back to my revision of the page once and once only. For "Space Jam": I was interrupted during the middle of fixing up the last revision I had previously done. Then when I submitted my latest revision (with the changes all complete) it was removed without even an explanation for what was currently wrong. Jdogno5 (talk) 6:56 am, Today (UTC+0)

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:32, 24 March 2014 (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.

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).

Jdogno5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring and to avoid so in future I will take disputes to the talk page of the article instead. Jdogno5 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

On your third edit-warring block within a week, we blocked you indefinitely. While that doesn't mean it's permanent, I do think you should spend more time away from Wikipedia before we change our minds. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (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.

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).

Jdogno5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand better now what I didn't understand before and therefore I can say with full honesty that I know next time would be better if I am given a chance to prove it. Jdogno5 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So far you don't seem to have addressed the concerns that resulted in your block, so I am declining it again (also as answer to your request for help below). The level of edit warring and disruption and your apparent lack of desire to listen to other editors' concerns and explanations is troubling, and I don't think unblocking you would fix that, on the contrary. You stated in one of your most recent summaries, even after multiple warnings, I'm not allowed to express my opinion? and the answer to that is no, you are not. Wikipedia articles are not the place to express your opinions. I don't believe you really understand that, so your contributions will undoubtedly continue to be disruptive. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:05, 3 April 2014 (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.

{{help|Am I allowed to ask for how long should I stay away from Wikipedia? Jdogno5 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)}}

Your original block advised that you should ask to return in "several years". I remain of the opinion that that is sound guidance. Note that because you were not asking for an unblock, I reformatted it as a "help" request. Since I am the original blocking admin, I am leaving your request up so that others can chime in.—Kww(talk) 01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

{{help|Does that mean I have to wait three years at the very least before I can come back? Jdogno5 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)}}

That will depend on exactly what explanation you could provide for why you think it would go any better the next time. There's no hard and fast rule, but certainly, the longer you wait, the more likely it is that people would believe that you changed in the meantime.—Kww(talk) 02:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

{{help|Sorry about that: I swear I was removing some sort of garbled code that appears every now and then in the articles. Jdogno5 (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)}}

{{help|What's going to happen to me now? Jdogno5 (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)}}

Another admin will answer your unblock request, because, as the original blocker, I'm not permitted to deny your unblock. It may take days.—Kww(talk) 04:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that no one has bothered to acknowledge your unblock request, but it's pretty unlikely that anyone would grant it. I would suggest that you simply go do something else for a few years and try again. I'll flip your template to attract attention from other admins so this can formally come to an end.—Kww(talk) 01:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

{{help|"So far you don't seem to have addressed the concerns that resulted in your block,...: What do you mean I "don't seem to have addressed the concerns that resulted in" my block? "The level of edit warring and disruption and your apparent lack of desire to listen to other editors' concerns and explanations is troubling": What do you mean by my "apparent lack of desire to listen to other editor's concerns and explanations..."? I am trying to get an explanation for how my edits were wrong. "You stated in one of your most recent summaries, even after multiple warnings, I'm not allowed to express my opinion? and the answer to that is no, you are not. Wikipedia articles are not the place to express your opinions. I don't believe you really understand that, so your contributions will undoubtedly continue to be disruptive.": I was trying to express everything objectively. Jdogno5 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)}}

{{help|What's happening now? It's been a fortnight at least, so now what? Jdogno5 (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}}

I don't understand your question. You've been blocked. You've asked three times to be unblocked, and you've been refused three times. You asked how long you should take before asking again, and you were told three years. So far as I know, what's going on is that you are going to spend the next three years doing something besides editing Wikipedia. At that time, if you still want to edit Wikipedia, you may decide to ask to be unblocked.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

{{help|Can someone answer the question I asked two paragraphs above this one in relation to a response for being unblocked eight paragraphs above this one?: "So far you don't seem to have addressed the concerns that resulted in your block,...: What do you mean I "don't seem to have addressed the concerns that resulted in" my block? "The level of edit warring and disruption and your apparent lack of desire to listen to other editors' concerns and explanations is troubling": What do you mean by my "apparent lack of desire to listen to other editor's concerns and explanations..."? I am trying to get an explanation for how my edits were wrong. "You stated in one of your most recent summaries, even after multiple warnings, I'm not allowed to express my opinion? and the answer to that is no, you are not. Wikipedia articles are not the place to express your opinions. I don't believe you really understand that, so your contributions will undoubtedly continue to be disruptive.": I was trying to express everything objectively. Jdogno5 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)}}

{{help|Can someone answer my above question/s? Jdogno5 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)}}

{{help|Can someone answer my question/s two paragraphs above this one in relation to a response for being unblocked ten paragraphs above this one? Or not? Jdogno5 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)}}

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I may not have liked it but I was willing to accept that I was given a lengthy block of was it three years? However it has recently come to my attention that you have blocked two other users (Michael Demiurgos and Lucifer Morningstar 01) for the seeming reason of editors that share a similar viewpoint and have edited the same or similar pages to me. I have not being here in nearly two years in compliance with the sentence I was sanctioned with. You may not like me but do not go after anyone who happens to share a similar view as I on a subject. That is plain intolerant and vindictive.

P.S. if you choose to block me simply for expressing this, this only proves you to be intolerant and unreasonable.

Jdogno5 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jdogno5. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)