User talk:Jilllyjo

Please comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A request
Hi Jilly, I don't know what the situation is with you and Winkelvi, but please don't seek out interactions with him. There was no need for this or to revert when he removed it (which meant he had seen it). It's best just to get on with your own work. SarahSV (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I believe though that you may be be mistaken, or perhaps have been misinformed, not sure which.

I did not "revert when he removed it" any item on the talk page of winkelvi. As you say that would not be proper to revert on another users talk page. Please look that over again if you get a chance. As far as seeking out interactions with him I am not. I attempted to talk with him about working together on the Billy the Kid article. That is all. Now since he has been showing bad faith today against me and others on wikipedia today I warned him and he is trying to accuse me of harassment! That is totally ridiculous. Winkelvi has been acting predjudicially toward me just because I have not made a userpage yet. deja vu I am getting back to my work. Jilllyjo (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC).
 * I agree with Sarah. Your behaviour towards him is verging on harassment now. He has made it clear that he does not want any interaction between you and him, so stop. --Ches (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You are wrong Ches Winkelvi is somehow under the impression that I reverted something on his talk page after he removed it. This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Even though I know you are biased toward winkelvi please go to his talk page andd find a diff where I reverted anything there. I did not, but if you can show me a diff where I reverted there I will say I am mistaken. The note SV left above, she was mistake about me reverting his removal of the bad faith warning I left there. As I said at Svès page winkelvi is harassing me. He is at articles I edit yes. He is treating me with predudice against me and keeps using his word derogatorily toward me (red-linked). like he thinks I have no worth or something. He make baseless allegations at SV page that I was a sockP with no proof or evidence. that is a personal attack no? Leaving two warnings on his page is not harrassment. Plus I left a note inviting him to work together on the btk article. He just reverted that with a snarky note.

Winkelvi has been bothering me since I started here just because I have been edit the btk article and other old west articles which are my favorite. Please get him to leave me alone and stop harassing me. I have kept track of the times and pages where he has been bothering me and I will take further action if necessary.

But please Ches you find the diff where I reverted anything on his talk page. He is wrong about that and has blown this all out of proportion. Ask him to stop all his disruption and harassment of me.It is a horrendous way to treat a new editor! signed JillyJo Jilllyjo (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

*1. WV has been editing BTK for a while now - in fact, he nominated it for GA status. You, however, have just appeared on that article, and you aren't making any constructive edits at all, besides changing wording that was fine in the first place. The only reason he edits the articles that you edit is because you've been following him around to those articles.
 * 2. He has every right to think you're a sock. You have no user page, you have a suspicious and somewhat strange bias towards Maunus - in fact, now might be a good time to mention that your grammar and spelling was of good standard on Maunus' talk page, and that response you left just now is of poor grammar? Strange. Also, as I mentioned before, you have randomly appeared on this article - one which Maunus has a history of editing. You have very few edits, and yet you know about GA reviews and wanted the BTK GA review to be declined. Also strange. It is clear that you are not new to Wikipedia, and if I were you, I'd declare your alternate accounts. --Ches (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * wow more casting of aspersions with no proof or evidence. More accusation of being a sock with no proof, evidence, or diffs. Show a diff where I said I wanted the GA of btk to be declined? That is a lie!

"The only reason he edits the articles that you edit is because you've been following him around to those articles." This comment shows bad faith by you toward me. Consider yourself warned. And Maunus? So is he a sock too? wow you have gone way too far now. Jilllyjo (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't highly suspect Maunus. I just find it suspicious that several R/L editors without user pages and very few edits seem to be editing BTK and stating that the GA review shouldn't go on, or are just trying to sabotage it. Shootseven comes to mind. --Ches (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said I wanted btk to fail GA. Some other editors did yes. Do not group me in with anyone and say I did that. You were wrong. Please get your facts straight before typing on my talk page. I have made quite a few edits there correcting poor wording, fixing mistakes, and copyedited problems areas, and I have said several times that I want to have the btk article to pass GA. Thanks!    Jilllyjo (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ches, WV has banned half of the editors here from their talk page and then goes around posting nasty untrue stuff about them. Save your breath defending him - it makes you look bad. I get you are trying to mentor him, but please don't add to his drama. Yes I was asked to look at this, so what?  Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy.

A kitten for you!
too close to the camera :P

Ronniejbaroi (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 
 * So adorable. Thanks!  Jilllyjo (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy-edit request
Hi can you please copyedit my article Assassination of Ali. Its up for DYK review, where the reviewer has asked it to be copyedited. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will take a look at it now. I will do a thorough job, so please give me 24 to 36 hours. Thanks for asking me. I will be glad to do the copyedit. Jilllyjo (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC
 * at footnote #4 do you know the year to 28 January? Jilllyjo (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Inserted the info. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, we need to pick a few more applicable categories to add to the article. Article is looking quite good so far. Will finish tonight. Have a great evening. Jilllyjo (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanking
and, I just manually archived the welcome. No offense to you. You did not see any red flags because there are none. I am not Wordseventeen. BTW, I do not speak italian, (I clicked on a link on a wikipedia page and it threw me into a page on italian wikipedia and someone there welcomed me on my talk page there. As a courtesy I thanked them), and I volunteered at a children's site to write articles and edited there on and off for a few years. They used this wiki software, so I was really familiar with editing. As for my spelling of the word behaviour, please pardon me for being Canadian, I live in the US now, but went to school in Canada. And one other random editor spells behaviour the same as me? Since I am not him, I do not understand how to even appeal the block. Jilllyjo (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jilllyjo, if you wish to appeal the block, follow the intructions in block notice above, i.e., first read WP:GAB, the post the unblock template. If you screw it up, I'll try to fix it for you once I notice it. I have your page on my watchlist, but I'm not always on-wiki, of course, although sometimes it seems like I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

 Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators



discussion

 * I can't say anything about whether or not I believe this account is a sock or not, but Jilllyjo's edits at the BTK article, in spite of what some others have said, have appeared to be productive and useful. At the very least, her editing of articles should not be a major cause for concern. The repeated allegations made by users that Jilllyjo was trying to get the article failed were completely untrue. Display name 99 (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, but the fact remains that this is a checkuser block, and the evidence of sockpuppetry appears to be convincing.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jilllyjo, if you want the account unblocked, you're going to have to provide specific evidence as to why you are not a sockpuppet. I don't know much about checkusers, but I imagine that the results of their tests are fairly reliable. Therefore, you are up against a lot. If you are not a sockpuppet, you will have to try to convince people of that, and not merely list your editing accomplishments. Display name 99 (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The checkuser data shows that you and WordSeventeen have been using the same computer . Please, explain the situation.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  01:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The computer that I have was not new when I got it. My father gave me this one at Christmas time last year. But I am not sure if he ever used wikipedia on it before he gave it to me. He got a brand new computer. I registered my account near the end of January because I wanted to edit and work on articles about more adult subjects. Jilllyjo (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that your father could be ? If you are, could you try asking him? It might be a bit awkward, but it could be worth a try. Display name 99 (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure. He never said anything about working on wikipedia. I really hate to ask him, as you said that may be awkward. But one thing I do know is that he does speak Italian. We went on a trip to Italy about two years ago, and he was able to speak to the people there pretty well. I hate to invade his privacy to ask him though. He does work a lot on his computer.  Jilllyjo (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I know my father gave me his old computer. I have no idea if he is w17 or not. Please do not come to my talk page if you cannot show AGF. Thanks Jilllyjo (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that "Jilllyjo" is WordSeventeen. The above claims regarding "Jilllyjo" having a father who might be WordSeventeen just seems utterly nonsensical. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 04:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When your account has been confirmed by checkuser to be an abusive sockpuppet, there is no longer any need to AGF--particularly when your attempted "explanation" is so tortured and improbable. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 05:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was simply responding to a question. If you wish to keep showing bad faith then please go right ahead somewhere else. I am asking you formally to stay off my talk page. I do not care to interact with you or your negativity. Thank you.  Jilllyjo (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Jilllyjo, your Talk page is only for discussing your block or making an unblock request. You cannot do anything else, including editing by proxy, planning future editing, etc. I therefore reverted your last additions to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please pardon me then. I will just save my future articles off-line for now. I was only trying to show that I am a productive editor with the ability to create articles. Thank you for your help and guidance. Jilllyjo (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I read over the link you listed. That humour piece suggests that a user did vandalism on their own account and then tried to blame it on brother, or a fake brother. My situation is way different than that. I do not believe there is any way to prove that I am a totally different person than w17. Not any way that you would accept. What would you accept? Or will you not consider any proof? If you will not accept any proof then you guys should change that part in the GAB page. I accepted a gift, and was thrilled to get a computer used or not. So if my father had given me a brand new computer, I guess I would have been better off. Jilllyjo (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're not a sock puppet, I suggest that you go through editing patterns between the two accounts and try to find things that would make it difficult or impossible for you to be the same person. I do note, however, that has said nothing about his block on his talk page. Because he was on a 6-month block before, it could just be that he's not logged in and thus doesn't know about it. But I still thought I would bring that up. Display name 99 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do know that apparently the CU results showed that w17 and I edited on wikipedia from the same computer. I can only surmise that my father is him, and he edited wikipedia as w17. I have been doing some reading around wikipedia and found this:

"But it is possible that two or more individuals may be sharing the same computer or connection, either as family members or roommates living in the same household, co-workers editing from one or more computers in the same office, visitation of a relative or friend (sometimes on a regular basis), students using a school computer, strangers using the same hotspot (such as a cafe or public library), or one who is piggybacking off a neighbor's connection." from here: Signs of sock puppetry. The page goes on to say, "that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sock puppetry is occurring, or the checkuser data shows a connection, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sock puppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly." The CU says there is a computer connection that is expained above in the family member scenario described above. Ohnoitsjamie referred to the essay about your little brother being blamed for vandalizing wikipedia on another family members account. It is like comparing apples with oranges. It seems there really is no way of appealing a block like this sucessfully when you have been named as a sock. The last part on the same page states, "in some cases, an actual admission of sockpuppetry can be the only definitive proof. Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sock puppetry is occurring, or the checkuser data shows a connection, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sock puppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly." I cannot admit sockpuppetry because I just am not w17, so I just seem to be stuck. That one admin asked me to explain how the CU showed that w17 and I had edited from the same computer. I told him the exact truth, and this one page explained that sometimes family members may use the same computer, among the other explanations there. But the admins involved are just not accepting the truth. Jilllyjo (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access removed
to save you the trouble of prevaricating further. Use User talk:WordSeventeen to request unblock, but it's nearly guaranteed to be unsuccessful unless you've not socked for 6-12 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've also declined the UTRS unblock request and provded a pointer to WP:STANDARD OFFER. Even a cursory perusal of the evidence makes it abundantly clear this is the same user as .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)