User talk:Greatlight2

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Greatlight2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little man. There is no need to discuss these issues with you. You do not control anything.

January 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni sections[edit]

Hi! About this revert, generally people are listed if they have Wikipedia articles. If the person has no article, usually he/she isn't listed.

Check Wikipedia:Notability (professor) and see if you think she could have an article. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy (Help!) 11:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring, please talk to us! We're here to answer your questions WhisperToMe (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 5, 2917. We are not self promoting. We will return with the documents verifying our position that Dr. Jody Reed MD is an accomplished Psychiatrist and that He is the Chairman of the Department. In this notable section you have unknown rappers and unknown porn actresses, who no one has cited or can even determine with they in fact do exist.

WOW BLOCKED FOR 31 HOURS. YOUR A VERY POWERFUL MAN. WE WILL RETURN WITH OUR CITATIONS AND DOCUMENTS VERIFYING OUR CLAIMS.

Nobody doubts the truth of the claim, the issue is its significance and the claimed notability of the individual. As to "we", see Wikipedia:Shared account.

Your response above is deeply unsatisfactory and I have reset the block so it will not automatically expire. I suggest you read WhisperToMe's comments. In order to be unblocked, you need to show that you've understood why trying to crowbar content in, is a problem, and how to go about seeking consensus for inclusion based on sources that met our guidelines - and accepting that consensus if it goes against you. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you're the problem.[edit]

- You are the problem. It is idiots like yourself that is the reason why Wikipedia is not a credible source. Example. in the Notable section, they have an entertainer (Jayson "Mick" Jenkins (2009) — hip-hop recording artist[8]) that no one has ever heard of and you cannot find any of this person's music. How can you have a notable entertainer that no one she ever heard of? How is that possible? In addition, they cite a prostitute/pornographer (Jennifer Jackson (1963) — Model, first African–American Playboy playmate of the month (March, 1965).) that no one can find. Are you serious, an unknown sex worker. These are notables. What this demonstrates is that a few people decide what is acceptable for everyone else without any logical reasoning.

In fact, you are violating that policy by preventing the development of this page. Over the years, much valuable information had been deleted from this page simply because someone did not want the information to be presented. Actually, we decided to record every step of this process to demonstrate how editors serve as a form of censorship by declaring what is appropriate for everyone to read. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We will present this 10 minute documentary on your for wikipedia to see your behavior.

You know we've heard variations on this theme a thousand times, right? The way it works is called Bold, Revert, Discuss. You boldly make an edit, someone disputes it (anyone, for any reason) and reverts it, and then you go to the Talk page and discuss it. When there's consensus, an edit gets made. If the consensus goes against you, you're expected to accept it and move on. You don't own the page, you have a very obvious and declared vested interest in the content, which nobody else does, and you are imputing motives rather than accepting at face value the explanations you're being given.

Nobody on Wikipedia gives a damn, personally, about the individual you are trying to promote. We have no opinion on him at all. The message you've been given is simply that the edits you made, do not fit with Wikipedia policy and practice. You've chosen to interpret that as some sinister agenda of suppression, which is pretty bizarre given that none of us would know this guy from a hole in the ground and I doubt that anybody with whom you've chosen to butt heads has even heard of the school before - I certainly haven't, I'm not even on the same continent.

So no, I am not the problem, neither are the editors who are reverting you. You are the problem.

There are people willing to help you learn how to use Wikipedia properly, who have left comments on this Talk page, but you have chosen instead to be belligerent and demand your "right" to make the changes you want. You have no such right. You have exactly two enforceable rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave.

At this point you stop demanding and start asking, or you can stay blocked. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- JzG , You are one of the reasons why this platform is being abandoned. I understand the rules and it is not your role to "teach me". Again, you do not have the "power" or ability to "block" anyone, I can simply use a different IP address. This platform has the ability to create limitless accounts with various IP addresses. So you have no power to do anything. Also your reason for a block is dishonest. This is not a shared account. You are just causing problems. In this article, you have an unknown prostitute and rapper as a notable and not the Chair of the Department of Psychiatry. Also, there are several errors in this article. Many of the citations are not credible. This page is a poor educational tool for this institution. That is the problem. Remember, your comments will be enrolled into a youtube video explaining "why contributors are abandoning Wikipedia for other platforms". Watch your mouth , Bitch. your comments will be used in the future to demonstrate to Hirsch Alumni how Wikipedia actually misrepresents their subjects. Also, if you have no connection to the school, you should not be involved to this extent.

You clearly don't understand the rules, hence the fact that you've been blocked and two independent admins have declined to unblock you. I've told you how we can control your attempts to crowbar content into Wikipedia. I've also told you how to go about persuading people to get what you want. You seem to think the crowbar will work, so haven't bothered to even consider trying my suggestions. We can try this and see who wins, but I've been doing this for over ten years and it's my experience that people who choose to do battle with the admins rather than engaged productively with other users, rarely, if ever, win. You seem to think you're the first to go down this path. You're not. You're really not. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 6 January 2017 (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).

Greatlight2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am an individual. This is not a shared account. User JzG makes an claim without any evidence.

Decline reason:

On the contrary. You've admitted this is a shared account. On top of that, you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. Yamla (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2017 (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.

Unlimited Ability to create Accounts.[edit]

Little man you do not change anything. We can set up as many accounts as we wish and we can keep editing this page as we wish. You do not control anything.

The last person to call me "little man" was one of my schoolmasters, Lt. Col. Geoffrey Pryke OBE. That was 40 years ago.

You think you can create unlimited accounts? You haven't read our policy. You should also read the terms of use: the Wikipedia community has the right to ban you, personally, and that means also any accounts you might use. We can ban you, we can block your accounts, we can use technical tools to track down other accounts you register, we can block your IP address, we can protect the article so it can't be edited, we can implement edit filters that will prevent you making specific changes. We have a lot of tools at our disposal. Your current approach is pretty much guaranteed to fail. I suggest you try a different one. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Greatlight2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Greatlight2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Greatlight2". The reason given for Greatlight2's block is: "Admitted shared account ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greatlight2&d

Blocking administrator: JzG (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.