User talk:Bobby Jacobs

Bobby Jacobs, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bobby Jacobs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

== Thank you, Bobby Jacobs, for reviewing the article on mathematician Doug Ulmer and for removing the banner template. Welcome to Wikipedia! == Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your knowledgeable review and interest in the article on mathematician Douglas Ulmer. You deserve a Barnstar! Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Bobby Jacobs (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of article on mathematician Douglas Ulmer

Thanks, Bobby Jacobs, for your contributions about prime numbers to Wikipedia articles. You may want to look at the revised article on Douglas Ulmer. There are now some links to his scholarly articles which may interest you.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I have removed your RfA. You are way too inexperienced to become an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may be discouraging (trust me - I know how it feels), but I will say that Bbb23 did you a favor by deleting this RFA. As you expand your knowledge and experience on Wikipedia and become fully proficient with the project as a whole, you'll understand why :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

There was no reason to suspect sock puppetry in this case. I did not use another account to vote on my own RFA. Therefore, this was inappropriate use of CheckUser. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I took a look through your edits. This was an inappropriate use of a WP:SOCK account. And clearly the checkuser believed there was reason to suspect sock puppetry (and it turns out they were right, you were using multiple accounts). As such, I see no grounds for lifting the block here, not at this time. Yamla (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2017 (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.

@Bbb23: What motivated you to use CheckUser? How did you know that I had a sock puppet? What about my RFA caused you to believe that I had another account? Bobby Jacobs (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bad year for websites

I used to contribute to OEIS, as Charles Greathouse knows. Then, I got blocked on OEIS. Then, I contributed to Wikipedia. Now, I am blocked on Wikipedia. This has been a bad year for websites! Bobby Jacobs (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not mean to be bad. Earlier this year, I was blocked on OEIS, so this has been a difficult year. Please unblock me. I promise not to use any other account besides this one. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. only (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2017 (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.

I know that I was blocked for having more than one account.
I promise not to use another account.
I have made useful contributions, and I will continue to do so.

This has been a hard year online for me because I was blocked on OEIS this year, too. User:CRGreathouse can confirm this. He helped me get back on OEIS. Now, I would like to get back on Wikipedia. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Sorry for having a sock puppet. I promise not to use another account. I also believe that User:Bbb23 was fishing because there was nothing about my RFA that indicated that I had another account. I would like an explanation from him why he believed that I had a sock puppet. Please unblock me. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First off, User:Timo3 is the main account, so any further unblock requests should probably be made on that account's talkpage. You have given a cursory apology, without acknowledging the use of two other 11-year-old sockpuppets, besides this (half-a-year-old) one. That is a serious breach of trust. CUs have broad discretion to conduct checks, and it's not necessarily the case that the check was done based solely on the RFA. The end result is the same. GAB^gab 17:20, 3 September 2017 (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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for all of the other accounts that I have used. I promise not to use any other account or accounts. Please unblock me. I promise I will be good. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circummstances a standard offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2017 (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.

A number listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A number. Since you had some involvement with the A number redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for using sock puppet accounts. I promise not to use any other account. Please unblock me. I promise I will be good. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please be more specific and provide examples of what you will edit. Simply saying "math articles" doesn't give us a clear picture. only (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2020 (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.

What would you edit if unblocked? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Math articles. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 431 (number) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 431 (number) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/431 (number) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]