AlbionJack
Welcome edit
|
Infobox military conflict edit
I provided you with a link to Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters. Did you read it? 'result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive".' Mojoworker (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
British Empire edit
You are restoring contested edits. Per WP:BRD please self revert and take to the talk page -----Snowded TALK 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no deadlock, per WP:BRD there is no need.AlbionJack (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Consitution vs Guerriere edit
I have once again reverted your addition to the lead:
- There was a large disparity in strength between the two frigates; Constitution was almost half as large again than Guerriere, had a far larger crew, a main deck battery of 24-pounder guns to Guerriere's 18 pounders, and was more strongly constructed than the French-built Guerriere, which was also in need of a refit. Although the Royal Navy was used to its home built frigates defeating French or Spanish ships of greater strength, Guerriere was a French built frigate and therefore not built as well as Royal Navy frigates, Constitution's victory was not surprising.
This is laying on the American advantages with a trowel, and its tone is therefore unacceptably POV. The disparity in strength is discussed in the body of the article, and a single sentence or phrase would suffice in any lead. You mention that the lead is copypasted from the War of 1812 article. Note that Wikipedia should not be a source for itself (WP:CIRCULAR). Finally, the assertion that "Constitution's" victory was not surprising" is a later, unsourced discussion. As the article and sources make plain, the Royal Navy had become used to its 38-gun frigates defeating the 44-gun frigates of the French and Spanish navies over the previous couple of decades, and Captain Dacres of "Guerriere" (and Carden of "Macedonian", who had not heard of "Guerriere's" defeat), and the RN generally, were unpleasantly surprised that the USN failed to accomodate this tradition. You are making original arguments which, being in the lead, are unduly prominent in the article. HLGallon (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi thee. Can you tell me where the writing at Altoona child sexual abuse scandal came from? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Altoona child sexual abuse scandal edit
Hello, AlbionJack,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Altoona child sexual abuse scandal should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altoona child sexual abuse scandal .
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Meatsgains(talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Jack Coppit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
AlbionJack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
When editing Wikipedia it is important that people are given chances, especially when they are editing in good faith. Previously when I created this account new it was confirmed it's the same IP address as a previous account also called a sock. However, I was assured that a new account operating in good faith with good edits is allowed to stay, especially when they admitted fault for previous actions. It is therefore important that we do not simply remove content that is notable and worthy of an article just because a sock created it. I have admitted fault in the past and have made very good constructive edits to many pages. I went to re-create said page on a topic removed only for it being made by a sock, that is not worthy of removal or a block. My edits are sound and none are vanadlism. I hope this can be respectfully displayed and understood that there is no need to block someone making good faith edits. After all Wikipedia is "for everyone".AlbionJack (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you were planning on demonstrating how utterly completely you have failed to understand Wikipedia's policies on multiple accounts, good job. Given the number of sock accounts you have created, you - the person at the keyboard - are de facto banned from Wikipedia. You may not edit here, under any account. Any edits you do make while evading your block may be legitimately removed by any editor, regardless of their content. If you wish to appeal the block, you will need to do so from your original account, and you will need to do so via WP:UTRS. Needless to say, your access to this talkpage has also now been revoked. Yunshui 雲水 07:45, 27 February 2019 (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.
- So this is a sock account? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Not quite, this is my account, I am a journalist and professional writer and created this account to continue making good edits. As stated it was confirmed it was the same IP as previous and immediately blocked per sock However upon review I was unblocked due to the fact I have made good faith edits and continue do so, admittance of previous failings occurred and I was able to continue as I were. Restoring a notable article is no need for a block when all my edits have been sound.AlbionJack (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- In fact I have displayed perfect behaviour in line with unblock requests, hence why I was unblocked in the first place.
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
- Thanks AlbionJack (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
AlbionJack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See above comprehensive reasons. AlbionJack (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline, this was a duplicate request. Note that this account isn't eligible for unblock consideration, not until the original account is unblocked. And note that the original account (and the editor himself) is de-facto banned now, given the chronic bad behaviour. Yamla (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2019 (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.