User talk:Jrg999999

Sockpuppet Investigation
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Martin58474. Thank you. Sven Manguard Talk  00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for meatpuppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have used this account before - what's your relationship with people listed here? I just want to be sure that unblocking you will help make an encyclopedia better. Max Semenik (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Years ago' = two, almost to the day. Account created, then same day participated in an AfD - not common behaviour. If you didn't use the account then, who did? Peridon (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, well, I don't know who those other people are. Also my comment was to KEEP the page which was proposed for deletion on the basis that I had found it useful. I am rarely moved to edit or comment as it's not a major part of my activities. However, today I noticed significant grammatical errors on a page about linguistics so thought it might be sensible to correct them to save the author embarrassment.


 * If you're objecting to being called "meat" or "puppet" then you clearly are refusing to read what the definition of a meatpuppet is - which, according to the guide to appealing blocks is not going to lead to a successful request. Also note, please do not open additional unblock requests while the original one is still open ... we're watching (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - thanks for your response.

1. I have not been manipulated by anyone to set up an account to support the non-deletion of the Dundas page 2. I have never been asked to do so by anyone 3. I do not know or have anything to do with any of the other accounts listed in the investigation 4. I have not now and never have had any links to or, vested interests in the company Dundas or any of its employees or anyone else with a vested interest in maintaining the Dundas page. 5. I am an innocent and falsely accused independent individual who thought his contribution to the discussion on keeping the Dundas page may be worth something in the argument, given that the page was useful to me so by extension ought to be useful to others. 6. I had completely forgotten about my contribution until I followed the links you provided and recognised the Dundas reference - I still have no recollection of doing this but it is highly likely that I did as we were reviewing our use of the Dundas components at around the time of my contribution. 7. The reason no other activity has been seen on my account is that I generally do not see articles which require my attention. The first time I have encountered such an article since setting up my account to comment on Dundas, was yesterday. 8. As a former linguist, with a degree in languages and linguistics, as well as years of experience as a technical author and 25 years in the translation industry - currently as a director of technology, focusing on delivering high quality publications, I thought my contribution could be worthwhile (I have never had so much trouble trying to give my time away for free). 9. I completely understand why my account was identified as fake, however, in this case, a mistake has been made. 10. If I were really a MEATPUPPET would I bother trying to get this account back or would I just ditch it and set up a new one? Thanks John