User talk:JahnTeller07

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Eric Holder

 * 1) Actually, half of those are blogs or otherwise non-reliable sources.
 * 2) If you had used a single secondary source instead of a primary source, as I advised on the article's Talk, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So why don't you hone your reading skills a little? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All but two of the links you left on my Talk page were editorials, opinion columns, or blog posts. There were news articles from The Bulletin and Fox News. Feel free to write about Holder based on what the news articles say, not the primary sources and non-reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I'm glad we were able to work together constructively. I apologize for the nastiness of my comments above. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it Malik...I knew it wasn't anything personal, thanks again JahnTeller07 (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama
I see that you are trying to fix the article's neutrality. I applaud you for that, but I'm sorry to say that the way you're going about it will simply result in an indef block. The reason for this is because the article's regular editors are mostly supporters of Obama and work collectively to make sure he is portrayed in a positive light. I do not believe they (collectively) are being malicious, and I honestly think that they are trying their best to be neutral. They simply do not understand what they are subconsciously doing: bias is clouding their judgment. We all have biases, and the only way to overcome them is to first understand that they exist. That is the key to making the article more neutral.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean what can I do? There seems to be no way of convincing them.  JahnTeller07 (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Spend the next two weeks thinking about it. You now know that edit warring is not a solution.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August, 2010
Cut this out. I see you're edit-warring across various articles to try to add content that supports a conservative political position, and have been blocked for it, so you ought to know better by this point. Please assume good faith, do not accuse other editors of bias, and if you do wish to discuss disputed edits, do so on the talk page before repeating them. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't heed that, or this, so I have filed a report at WP:AN/I. Feel free to participate there, but please stop the aggressive editing on the Obama article and talk pages while we sort this out.  - Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at Barack Obama and pursuing your stated purpose on Wikipedia, which is to work against administrators. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text. Toddst1 (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No action on your unblock request, but noticed and wanted to point out that your block message above says 'Indefinite' but really your block is for 2 weeks. I'm going to ping Toddst1 about it to confirm which one he intended (I assume the 2 weeks). Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's two weeks that's not outrageous, but I think an idef. would be.
 * Tell us about your coming to Wikipedia to "try and counteract some of the bias from the admins on wikipedia. Unfortunately they think that they are all knowing, and refuse to listen to anybody else so they can go on their power trips." Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Ikilled007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave Dial (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How can I be sock puppets of two different accounts??? Did you ever stop to think that me, as well as some other banned users were editing on the same article because the article is about THE PRESIDENT? That's probably a pretty popular article to edit.  Run a check on this so I can show you I have nothing to do with either Ikilled007, UGADawgs, or any of the other accounts I'm being accused of having connections with. JahnTeller07 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a good deal of repeated reversion in your contributions history, actually, though none that goes over WP:3RR. This doesn't necessarily mean it ISN'T edit warring, merely that it doesn't meet the bright-line rule that says it is. But that's a side note. What I want to say is this request probably needs to wait on Checkuser results for sockpuppetry before any decisions are made, since the CU has been given the go-ahead. Providing the CU doesn't throw up any sockpuppetry red flags, things can be evaluated from there. - Vianello (Talk) 18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, how will I know when the CU makes his eval? JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I already have. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)