User talk:Jack Wills It

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

May 2011[edit]

Your addition to Sir William Luce has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NortyNort (Holla) 02:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Boleyn[edit]

Hello, Jack, and welcome to Wikipedia. I thought I'd contact you about this article. With a name change like this, it's taken quite seriously, and if there's any dispute, it stays as it is until there's been a discussion on Talk:Mary Boleyn. This way it makes people feel they're being listened to (you included!) The way the article is is based on the consensus of several years - that's not to say it's perfect or that you couldn't improve it! It just means that changes might be controversial and thus need to be discussed. We try to avoid edit warring. Also your edit summaries seem a bit aggressive, if you don't mind me saying so. They don't need to be. Just politely add your views at the discussion. I'll be leaving a message as Iamundone's page as well, or are you the same editor? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite likely he is the same person. This editor has a long history of sockpuppetry - just look at the archive of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron. Perhaps his current bad form means it is time to reopen the SPI and get yet another sock banned? --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Simple Bob. Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been accused of being a persistent and disruptive individiual by some editors, but on an issue I feel strongly about I will try to defend myself. Yet if I was such a disruptive person why have I created 5 wikipedia pages in an attempt to further the value of learning on this site, and I have even uploaded about 30 images to add to articles so that readers will be able to see what this individual looked like! I ask you now would someone whose sole aim was to supposedly hound and destroy wikipedia articles, give up so much of their time trying to make it better? The editor Simple Bob always accuses someone of vandalising articles if they make a slight mistake, even though on the other hand they have made many more better! How can this be fair? When the user Jeanne Boleyn was edit warring was she ever punished for what she had done..no even though I used sources to back up my claims and even gave her a wikipedia article that showed that my edit was correct she merely replied that I should "Piss off"...All I have ever wanted to do is help wikipedia by creating articles that I know about or editing ones that I have an interest in.....But please Simple Bob just leave me alone I ahve never edited a page maliciously and now your even trying to delete the images that I uploaded to make wikipedia better even though they are over 100 years old so there is no copyright, and it even says who these portraits are by e.g Peter Lely and Godfrey Kneller.....Also may I ask why other editors are allowed more then one log in account and it not be classified as sockpuppetry?

Decline reason:

You are blocked under another account; you may not create others to circumvent that block. Seems simple. Any future requests will need to come from your original account. Kuru (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2011 (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.

Simple - you persist in the same disruptive behaviour that you have shown on every single account and IP that you have used. You were told to stay away from Wikipedia completely for 6 months. I believe that you even agreed to this, yet you came back time and time again. If 1% of what you do is constructive is good then that is far outweighed by the 99% of obsessive behaviour (adding honorifics), or edit warring with editors who know much better than you about how articles should be written and sourced, or simple bad editing such as missing source information off images (which is no better than your previous behaviour of repeatedly uploading copyright infringing images) or over-categorising articles. The bottom line is you have shown repeatedly that you aren't suited to Wikipedia. If you ever keep to they "stay away for 6 months" ban then perhaps a kindly admin might let you stay. Until then you have no place on WIkipedia. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well I did stay off wiki for about 5months before I came back, but please don't delete my images as a sockpuppet I might be, but the images help the articles in so many ways and as the creators of the images are all dead I was wondering its not technically copyright is it?

Five months? You came back in mid-March. That's three months. As for the images, they have no source. Images must have a valid source e.g. website, book, self-taken photo, etc., regardless of how old they are. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Bob may I ask a favour if I attach to my talk page the correct sources e.g where I got the pictures from, who they are by etc will you please attch them to the pictures so that they are not deleted, I know you don't have to do this as i'm a blocked user but images make an article better, so please will you consider this request as its not about you and me but about wikipedia???