User talk:Davidjohnjeffery

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf(talk) 11:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * David, first - are you ok with the possible concerns of using a WP:REALNAME on Wikipedia? Second, asking someone else to post information on your behalf is also a blockable situation, so be careful.  Recognize thirdly that the fact that you have an account on iMDB rather proves that imdb is not a reliable source - it's user-editable, just like Wikipedia.  Fourthly, we have very strict guidelines for notability for films ... they're not optional.  Saying you'll no longer break WP:COI or promote the film is a good start (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 18:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How do I sort out my account?
I'll do whatever it takes to fix this.

Hi. It's been a long time, and it sounds like you understand the problems with your past editing. I'll be happy to help you, but we just need you to choose a new username - it doesn't need to be your real name (and for privacy reasons you might prefer not to use that), just any name that doesn't represent a company or organization and is otherwise in line with Wikipedia's Username policy. Just reply here with the name you want, and I'll sort things out - I'm watching the page, so I'll be alerted when you reply. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zebedee. Can you change my username to davidjeffery? davidjeffery 13:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have someone by the name of User:David Jeffery who is currently active, and the two names are a bit too close - do you have a middle name you could use, or could you perhaps append a number or something to the end? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes can you try davidjohnjeffery? davidjeffery 14:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good, all sorted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Great! Now how do I get unblocked? davidjeffery 14:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I already unblocked you, as shown in your block log. Are you having problems editing? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank Zebedee. It works now. davidjeffery 15:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Death of Elisa Lam
Did you mean to make this addition to a different article? I can't see its relevance there. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is very relevant. I noticed that out of the list of films that have been related to this mysterious case, you were missing the one that is contained in Super 8. Let me explain. In the original case, the girl is called Eliza Lam. In Super 8, Joe's mother is Elizabeth Lamb. In the original case, the girl is trapped in a water tank. In Super 8, the only way the aliens can escape is by the Elizabeth Lamb picture inside the locket is impaled inside the water tank. There are other links but those are the obvious ones. It is common knowledge that this film bares very close links to the story so I thought that the writers of wiki had made a mistake by not including it. But, please, share your reasons for removing it.davidjeffery 18:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a coincidence and nothing but; in other words, unencyclopedic. In any event, Super 8 was released in 2011, two years before Lam's death, making it extremely unlikely the writers of the film were inspired by the case. Now, since there's all those references to Dark Water (both film versions and the book), which did come out years beforehand, I could see why you thought it belonged there. But ... those coincidences (which are lot stronger than the ones you noticed), were not first noted here but in the reliable sources cited in the accompanying footnotes. That's why they're there. Not because someone writing this article (like me, the primary contributor) noticed them, but because someone wrote about them somewhere else where we could take note of it. Adding things like that to articles, without the observation being sourced anywhere else, is considered original research and not to be included in articles. I do nevertheless appreciate your enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia, though, and would not want to discourage you from doing so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)