User talk:Jerome709

Original Synthesis
Many of the 49%[citation needed] of Mexican Americans who identified as white in the 2000 Cesus would likely fit into this category, particularly since only 10% of the population of Mexico is white."

Just to let you know, this section should not have been deleted. It should have been tagged as. Remember It is always better to add to an article than to subtract from it. Have a good day. Jerome709 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And to let you know, this is a false sentence since Mexican Americans who check White are not overwhelmingly mixed with Anglo Americans. 49% of Mexican-Americans are White due to the fact that their ancestors in Mexico were White. It is not at all better to let articles fill to the brim with POV, personal opinions, etc. Have a great day as well. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable...Thank You for that info. C.Kent87 (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice
Now you see why I rv'd it, it reads like a journal publication, is formatted like one, and screams "copy/paste", so I couldn't decide if it was WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, or just a plain mess of text. Either way it, it should of gotten cleaned up before plastered on the page. Q T C 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Kano (rapper)
Tagging the article very rarely has any effect; most articles on wikipedia have at least one completely ignored tag. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially when no source is provided. We could fill several articles with music zine gossip column material about Kano's "future plans". The article is far better served by sticking to actual facts and actual events. Jdcooper (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want readers to be skeptical about the information on the article. Myself and other editors have devoted quite a lot of time to getting that article shipshape, which involved removing the spurious, unsourced and unimportant information which articles about up and coming rappers always attract. If we could avoid a tag by removing one bit of unimportant and unsourced information, that is surely preferable? When more information about Kano's future plans reveals itself, we can work it all together into a section and source it all properly. Jdcooper (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, I appreciate that it is a rumour, which is why it shouldn't be allowed to compromise the quality of an article on which a lot of time has been spent getting rid of rumours and gossip. I'll have a scout round for a source though, I do appreciate your points. Jdcooper (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi. With regards to your recent warnings, please attempt to exercise some discretion. My change to Howard Schnellenberger removing the idiocy about him zipping his fly on national television was simple removing of vandalism. Similarly, your message to was equally inappropriate. On the other hand, some of the IP users you left messages to did make vandalism edits and it would be more helpful to revert the vandalism than simply leave a message and leave it in place. In at least one case, though - the IP edit to Apex Stores - that was in good faith. --B (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC) :Removing nonsense from an article isn't vandalism. WP:BLP permits that negative unsourced material be removed from biographies of living persons on sight. Even if that policy didn't exist, some guy zipping his fly is not an encyclopedic detail. Let me put it to you another way - if you continue to issue unfounded warnings, you will be blocked for disruption. --B (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
The following unblock was concurrent with the above review:


 * Barring a convincing explanation, I have re-blocked this account for the duration of Magnonimous's block. Please pick one account and stick with it. --B (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Unblock Me
I, Jerome709 am not magnonimous, nor have I ever been. I have been editing wikipedia through a private Canadian proxy as I have had bad luck with hackers in the past. I must say that I have enjoyed magnonimous's antics ever since I saw his edits when I checked the ip, ironically, to confirm that it wasn't in danger of being blocked. I did not expect him to fly off the handle like this though. I would appreciate it if you could unblock my user account, and I'll go back to my real IP. As a new user it will be hard, since I don't know all the rules, but I promise I will try not to bother anyone anymore. P.S. Can anyone suggest a good firewall? Jerome709 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the direct block from your account. You may get the autoblock message again, though, as now you will be autoblocking yourself.  If you do, I will need the autoblock ID in order to remove your autoblock.  What is your relation to the IP you are on?  Is it a shared IP assigned to multiple customers who use your ISP?  Is it assigned to you personally, but farmed out on a Tor (anonymity network) node or something like that?  The Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) does not permit the use of open proxies for editing.  When you use a dial-up or something like that, there's nothing you can do about it, but if you are running your own proxy, please shut it down. --B (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait wait, before you unblock me, I gotta shut down my proxy manager service. Hold On. Jerome709 (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
Your explanations have been demonstrated to be false (see Requests for checkuser/Case/Magnonimous) and this account has been blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Magnonimous. MastCell Talk 18:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, this is my real IP : 24.141.82.186 (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)