User talk:JaimeB64

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

Welcome!

Hello, JaimeB64, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Brent Lambert, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newbies is one of standards of Wiki is it not and I disagree with your context of "job" when it pertains to artwork...we created the backgrounds and colorized the images which is a huge part of the ARTISTIC process. While you might liken that to tightening a rope or moving some set prop I object strongly.

I could also seek records from Ottawa with regards to my articles in newspapers where I interviewed Jeff Healey, Anette Ducharme, Alannah Myles, Joan Jett, and other high profile musicians for my column off the record. Or I could have listed my accredited photography winning honorable mention for best black and white photography. I think however being a part of the production team that won us a Canadian Gemini Award for outstanding family programming would have been sufficient. The Raccoons is a huge part of Canadian culture...I was a part of that.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --JaimeB64 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I believe this is on notable reference and I have no respect for neo nazi like censorship

Wow. Nazis. Really? Are you familiar with Godwin's law? Anyway, you're confusing freedom of speech with an imagined right to appropriate someone else's forum. Consider this: Do you think you have the right to stand up in a movie theatre in the middle of the feature and make a political speech? You do not. And you do not have the right to contravene the policies and guidelines that Wikipedians have established by consensus to make it the work they would like it to be. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis did the same as you did...seize control of free information and dictate what they decided was NOTABLE for their citizens...your actions are no different

And last I checked buffy this is not your FORUM this is a talk page linked to my addition to wiki. your trolling me is what you do best though and from other comments on your own page I can see that I am not the only one that feels that way.

What you deem notable does in no way diminish what I feel is notable or should I just allow you to persecute myself and fellow artists and artisans because you don't feel we are important enough....somewhere there is a bridge that misses you.

Wikipedia is The Wikimedia Foundation's forum. Not mine, but also not yours. As for Nazis, if you don't understand the difference between freedom in your own home and on the streets, on hand, and expecting a private foundation to let you do what you want with its property, on the other, then you have a grossly distorted understanding of the concepts of freedom and oppression. I'll try to clarify this distinction one more time. If I break into your house to give a speech and you call the police, are you a Nazi?

This is also not YOUR forum either...it is a sponsored information system that is paid for mostly by donation...you are a volunteer so unless a director of the business/foundation and care to debate what is notable and what is not then take a hike...Respect begets respect...being an asshole only invites me to flame you further. This article is valid accurate and of note for our region and I stand by it. In fact I will stand by it enough to fight for it...so if you really think that the puny amount of kbs is worth fighting for bring it on cause I will do so.

When a real member of the actual foundation wishes to speak to me with respect and understanding then perhaps we will have common ground until then I have no respect for a couple of trolls that want to dictate who is deemed notable or not...I read the guidelines on notability and there is nothing there that would exclude this article from being notable...so either explain exactly what the issue is or stay off my submissions.

December 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Jsfouche with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing...lol

making changes to an editor/trolls talk page is not vandalism you mental midget

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a vandal is not an attack?

Nope. It's called enforcing community standards. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go enforce your own community because in my community this article is relevant and notable

Report filed at WP:AIV

Notification is given that a report has been filed at WP:AIV in regards to your vandalism and refusal to adhere to warnings. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specification...I won't adhere to your warnings because you are not worthy of respect.

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Jaime Buelow, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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. 5 albert square (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because you were continually removing deletion templates from a page you created and because you were personally attacking other editors. If you carry on doing this on your talk page you will be blocked from editing that too--5 albert square (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a shit these assholes started a war with me on wiki then just watch cause it's going to get worse until this asshole backs the fuck off me — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaimeB64 (talk • contribs)

Jamie, rowing with other editors is not worth it and it will certainly not help you in your unblock request. Please just take time out, you can come back when your block has expired and start editing constructively :)--5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JaimeB64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admins that think they should be given respect just because they are admins should not be admins...end of story. Power corrupts...absolute power...corrupts absolutely

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. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:43, 17 December 2013 (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.

To the reviewing admin: I suggest the block be extended and include this page. 69.181.253.230 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 5 albert square (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended your block one week for abusing multiple accounts. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaimeB64. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]