Welcome edit

Hello, Jackthart, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or   or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Demiurge1000

Happy editing! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

May 2011 edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Mark Riley (journalist), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Australian monarchists edit

You've been categorising a whole bumch of people this way. You need sources to support this, and the issue needs to be mentioned in each of their articles. I mean, what does it mean to say that Earle Page was a monarchist, when he died in 1961, decades before there was ever any substantial debate about Australian becoming a republic. Where is the citation that supports the categorisation in his case? Or Arthur Fadden? Ot all the others? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Neutral point of view edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Bob Brown appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --Elekhh (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Blocked edit

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for on the basis of your contributions it's pretty obvious that you're another sock of Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jackthart (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

What the heck? I have never broken any rules and I have always edited in good faith. What's the problem? I don't even know what a 'sock' is. There is no evidence of this, I'm a new user and I haven't even been warned yet. Please explain Jackthart (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of User:Enidblyton11. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As before, I have removed your talkpage access from this account. Please make your unblock requests at User talk:Enidblyton11.  -- Lear's Fool 05:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply