Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jamesharrison2014. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open RFC on talk:White House press corps. Billhpike (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		For getting through the instruction creep and learning how to constructively resolve disputes and expand articles. Billhpike (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:48, 6 March 2018 (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).

Jamesharrison2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by an admin who has not provided a shred of evidence and blocked me for disagring with me. There was no sockpuppet investigation and I do not have multiple accounts. I only have this account. The admin says I am a returning editor but I am not and he has not done anything to show such. I would love for someone to complete a checkuser and or sockpuppet investiagtion to prove that I do not have duplicate accounts. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ✅ (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It seems likely that this account may be a sockpuppet, but even if it isn't, unblocking it would not benefit the project. The account has been used for promotional editing, for personal attacks, and for edit-warring. (It has even put warnings about edit-warring into edit summaries on edits which were part of an edit war, showing that the editor knew full well that edit-warring was unacceptable.) It has falsely claimed consensus for its editing where there clearly was no such consensus. I could go on, but the overall picture is clear enough: this is a disruptive editor who is not benefitting the project. (Incidentally, it is also pretty well certain that no unblock request would succeed if it contained an absurd and unsubstantiated accusation that the blocking administrator blocked the editor because of personal disagreement with that editor.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2018 (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.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jamesharrison2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20796 was submitted on Mar 06, 2018 12:02:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already offered you the chance to declare previous accounts. Its blatantly obvious you are not new, and if you were a legitimate returner then you would be open when challenged. Ergo you are a returning blocked user. I'm happy to discuss detailed reasoning with a reviewing admin by email but any quick scan of your early edits shows you are a retred. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated this is just an opinion and is not based in fact no checkuser or other investigation has been completed. I would ask the admin to investigate the issue rather than rushing to judgement as done by this admin. It was clearly not investigated. This should be on the merits not on one admin's opinion that is not based in fact or evidence. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ✅ (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Its blatantly obvious you are not new, and if you were a legitimate returner then you would be open when challenged. Ergo you are a returning blocked user." This is simply put not a fact and is clearly biased and based of of an opinion. Should we not get the facts before banning random editors? Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ✅ (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied the earliest edits made with this account. They show a level of acquaintance with Wikipedia editing, even on the first day, which makes it wholly clear that they were not your first experience here. I suggest that you have a simple choice; come clean or stay blocked. Mere protestations are without effect. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Based on editting interest, there are some accounts I suspect may also have been used by JamesHarrison2014. None of these accounts were blocked, nor were any used simultaneously. (To avoid an outing, I'm not going to post the accounts publicly). If this user declares the accounts privately via WP:UTRS, his unblock request should be given serious consideration. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jamesharrison2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20810 was submitted on Mar 08, 2018 00:20:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Spartaz JamesBWatson Thats fine I will just create another account bitches and you will never know fuckers. Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ✅ (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing style is fairly unique and easy to identify. I would suggest you strike the above comment and wait 6 months to apply for WP:STANDARDOFFER. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Dr. James Harrison, Ph.D. ✅ (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at WP:ANI for talk page acess to be revoked. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]