Jennifer500

Welcome!

Hello, Jennifer500, 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 and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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! J Milburn (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

www.cchr.org.uk

I noticed that you are removing these links. I think you're correct that the links are inappropriate. However, it might be helpful to identify who was adding the links in case there are spamming or coi problems as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

After looking into it a bit, I think there's a serious problem here.

• cchr.org.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.cchr.org.uk

--Ronz (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The links were added from various dynamic BT Broadband IPs in London. Therefore, blocking enough addresses to stop the editor adding the links would cause unacceptable collateral damage. Jennifer500 (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks that way. I'm collecting the information to support having the link blacklisted permanently. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there some way to accomplish that while permitting the links on Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Scientology and psychiatry, and other articles to which they have genuine relevance? Jennifer500 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. They aren't currently in the two article you mention. Are you saying they might be appropriate to be added to those article? --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Those articles include links to the main CCHR website. Blocking the UK branch's site whilst permitting the main site to be linked probably wouldn't stop the spammer. Jennifer500 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there may be more to do, but blacklisting www.cchr.org.uk is a useful step.

For other sites that could be appropriate in Wikipedia, XLinkBot (talk · contribs) can help. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That was the end of them. Good work! I'll put together a report and blacklist request at WP:RSPAM --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Welcome. You seem to be doing quite a good job so far - I take it you've been around longer than your 'New Account' status would indicate. A tip - when going through new edits or new accounts, don't forget the user pages. I find a lot of spam there... Peridon (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep that in mind. Jennifer500 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's a talk page, I replace the spam with 'Promotional material removed' and sign it. User pages - in cases of spam or attack - I tag appropriately (including blanking in the case of attack. Peridon (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

NW (Talk) 03:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

Jennifer500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a preposterous block, and no reason is given for why NuclearWarfare thinks I'm John254.

Decline reason:

 Confirmed by CheckUser. –MuZemike 04:02, 10 January 2010 (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).

Jennifer500 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since you're not a checkuser, exactly which checkuser is that? From what secret location has this been coordinated?

Decline reason:

Behavioral evidence here is plenty good enough anyways. Even if checkuser didn't exist, any admin could tell pretty easily that you are John254. Disputing the checkuser result does you no good since its plainly obvious just from your editing. Jayron32 05:30, 10 January 2010 (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.

The checkuser, Alison, established that you were editing from an open proxy. In addition, your edits are pretty much an exact giveaway to John254. Even if you are not him, you are definitely the sock of another user on an open proxy. NW (Talk) 04:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So the "open proxy" is (just taking a wild guess here) 82.138.241.220. Exactly which proxy service does she think it is running? Does that IP's whois information look like an open proxy, or an ISP? People in England have DSL access through AceShells. Perhaps only editors with British Telecom DSL are allowed :) Jennifer500 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)