User talk:John Henry DeJong

The vandal (see: User:John Henry DeJong (renamed) formerly registered under my name has been relieved of it, and I have taken possession of this user name and will begin editing articles soon!

Thanks to all for your generous assistance. John Henry DeJong 03:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get cracking --Rakista 21:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rather start slow and do it right ;-) John Henry My Talk Page 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that you've got three eee's in "engineer" on your user page. I'm fixing a bunch of pages with that problem right now, but I didn't want to presume to edit your page (if I even can). Podkayne 21:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons

Note to all who come here via Simpsons pages: I found myself going down a wikirathole a few days ago that led me to actually reading every episode article about The Simpsons on Wiki. Since I'm an anal-retentive control freak, I couldn't help but notice some glaring gramatical, spelling, form, and factual errors in various articles. I am now undertaking to correct these articles. Questions of fact relating directly to the show will likely not be addressed, as I am not an expert on the Simpsons. Please feel free to post here if you have any questions.-- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) ---[reply]

STILL blocked?=

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Clearly a technical error. I am not and was never the person responsible for the sockpuppet, but a victim of that person. I reclaimed this username *six years ago* and have several score good edits since then. Not sure why this has come up again after all this time, but I'd sure like to see it fixed.

Accept reason:

I have no idea what happened here. According to the lock log, this account has in fact been blocked since 2005, and has never been unblocked. As you say, that is obviously incorrect as this account edited as recently as August of this year. Our new software is causing a lot of really stupid problems like this, and it seems the first admin on the scene here looked no further than your block log. Sorry about that, I can assure he is a generally competent admin and apparently just acted a bit hastily in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can I remove this section of the talk page, then?

This account has been blocked since 2005. If you've been editing since then, it's been on another account. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care to argue about this; you could have easily checked the veracity of my statement by clicking on the contributions links. In case you cannot find it, I've included it below.

I have exactly one account, and it's the same one I have had since I reclaimed it from the sockpuppeteer. This: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:John_Henry_DeJong_(renamed) Is the sockpuppet account which should be (and so far as I know, is) blocked. This: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=John+Henry+DeJong is my edit history since reclaiming the account. I am not new to Wikipedia, or the internet, or computer technology; I would not have posted the notice if I wasn't certain that there has been some sort of technical glitch. The ONLY difference between this account and the account used to make all of those edits is the IP address...that'll happen when you move from coast to coast and end up 800 miles north of where you started.

And conveniently, I can't post any sort of request for any sort of help from anyone who might actually care more about this clear technical glitch than about arguing back and forth in defiance of clearly visible evidence...because I'm blocked.

Apologies, Beeblebrox told me what happened. I only looked at your block log and assumed that it was correct - a bit of a stupid assumption, given that the recent software update has broken just about every other aspect of the site over the past two weeks. I've reported the issue here so that hopefully we won't run into any other issues of this nature. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]