Welcome!

Hello, Jebbrady, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Jebbrady for sticking with it even when it's easier to give up on an article 72.68.9.131 05:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address that gave Jebbrady this Barnstar is suspected of being Jebbrady. Pairadox 08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was or not, I would like to give him one too. His comments are consistently fair and reasonable. Bravo to you! Red hothead (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the gentlemen who was blocked last night from the Worldwide Church of God article, and accused of article vanadalism.

I want to say at the outset that not only do I love wikipedia and rely on it for information quite frequently--as even as someone possessing a history degree--but I also lament that the advantages to using wikipdia are not more widely understood (like the fact that esoteric jargon for any subject is almost always can be clicjed on to go to an article that explains the jargon). I respect, and even more, admire the Wikipedia community for what it is trying to do, and it is in my interest to help Wikipedia maintain and even improve its image.

I saw no "blocking" or vanadlism warning until I just suddenly found that I could no longer edit the page only seconds after dueling with someone who instantly shot in to revert my delete.

My understanding of the vandalism policy is that the deleting a section that represents a tiny fraction of the text of an article is not vandalism.

I deleted two sections that were not only filled with POV, but more importantly for the reputation of Wikipedia, they were sections that had the strong appearance of religious bigotry especially in the context of a total lack of anything mentioning Armstrong's accolades and honors and humanitarian projects. Further, the vandalism policy prohibits religion bashing, which it appears your blocking of me is protecting--who then is vandalizing? If the vandalism policy is going to be used as a screen for religious slander and bigotry, you may find out that you will have more on your hands than you bargained for.

I'll add that the Wall Street Journal just recently changed their minds about giving an offshoot group of the WCG the opportunity to run an add in their paper; the reason they gave was that they had read a wikipedia article on Herbert W. Armstrong ( my guess is that it was this WCG article)that made it seem like his life was full of scandal (and no positive accomplishment.) This opened up wikipedia to some embasrrassing commnents from those who were denied the add, broadcast far and wide, and I felt personally embarrassed (one leader said, with a weary laugh, something like,"that the Wall St. Journal would rely on Wikipeida as it source on H. W. Armstrong is pitiful"--I was agaste.

As a someone possessing a history degree, understanding how to scrutinize sources for credibility, I have to be honest and say that I've been absolutely shocked and appalled by what I have read in this article. The ubiquitous use of source material attributed to people who clearly have a self-serving agenda to protect their financial hijacking of the Church that Armstrong started is just one of the problematic features. Also problematic is the giving credence to allegations from common, disgruntled excommunicated members--allegations thrown out in court and laughed at by members--especially those who knew the character of the accusors and why they were kicked out. Meanwhile, not a single word of the litany of projects, awards, and honors Armstrong was involved in--not a single mention. That look like religious bigotry to anyone who deeploys a little reason and common sense.

Again, I like Wikipedia and respect what the community is trying to do, and it greatly saddens me to see this. I'm going to have to bring the religious bigotry issue up to the highest Wikipedia authorities, and to more people inside and certainly outside the community if this doesn't get resolved in a professional way.

The manner in which I was blocked so rapidly by more than one administrator seems to indicate an an odd vested interest in this article. Considering the dubious leagal and financial legacy of the current WCG leadership, I am going to see if I can do some real digging to see what is going on with this.

Thank you for unblocking me.

Jebbrady 06:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

If you want your IP unblocked please follow the Wikipedia:Appealing a block guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jebbrady for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Lisasmall 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may use this link to review the evidence if the link to "Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jebbrady for evidence" is not working in the standard puppetry case notice template above. Lisasmall 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP User:69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 week, as it is being used in conjunction with this account on contentious issues. You should still be able to log in with your named account to edit. Please use only your named account or the IP, as using both creates the illusion of more support than actually exists. If you've just forgotten to log in, please clarify that on the article talk page. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the warning template in this section now redirects to the second sockpuppet report filed August 17. The warning template for the second case was placed on this page the day the report was filed, and can be seen in its own section below. The change in the July 21 template in this section is apparently an automatic effect of filing a second complaint and cannot be corrected by editing here. The original July 21 sockpuppet report to which the template in this section originally referred, and should still refer, can be found here. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that by reverting my changes, you removed the persondata block and introduced a break in the middle of a paragraph that shouldn't have been there. Please pay attention to what you're doing next time. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you broke the succession box and introduced a misspelling, too.--SarekOfVulcan 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll bite: why do you feel that this doesn't violate WP:NOR? It's possible I'm wrong, so I'd like to hear your reasoning. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to make a more determined effort to log in when editing, or use the "Remember me" button when logging in to help with that? As the issue you're editing is contentious, it's challenging to see contribs spread across multiple username/IP's from the same editor. I don't think you have any malicious or bad-faith intent, and I appreciate that you're signing the IP posts by hand, but if you could make the effort to use your account it would be appreciated. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jebbrady, could I make a request? For your next few edits, could you please try to use both the Preview and Changes buttons before hitting Save Page? You have the last 47 revisions to the Armstrong article, some of which are only a couple of characters difference. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeb. Recently you left me a comment about possible COI at the Worldwide Church of God article. While my Talk page is open to all, it is best to leave lengthy comments that concern a particular article on the article's own Talk page. If you want to be sure I see the comment, leave me a brief message, like 'See my new comment over at WCG that you may have an opinion on.' This avoids the phenomenon known as WP:MULTI:

If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link.

Thanks, EdJohnston 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(crossposting from my talk page)

Hi Sarek,

You seem very neutral in your edits and perspective with the Armstrong article. What is your take on my controversy and deliberations with Lisasmall on the discussion page, if you've read the postings? Though I acknowledge that I make some strong aruments to persuase third parties, and vigorously try to thwart certain kinds of edits (ones I objectively see as POV ax-to-grind editing--making the article look bigoted toward a religion), she is currently contacting Wikipedia administrators and describing my efforts with the article in the most negative light imaginable, even being dishonest about it. Any advice?

208.253.158.36 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady[reply]

Jeb, I don't know if I have any good advice for you. It doesn't seem, from checking her contribution history, that she's actively doing anything involving your edits at the moment. About all I can advise is keep cool: when you and I started talking, instead of just reverting each other, we got a lot more productive.

Also, you might want to keep your paragraphs short: it's much easier to keep track of what's going on when you don't have to wade through lots of text looking for the ideas the author is trying to get across. :-)

And please, please go up to "My Preferences", "Editing", and check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". I have that one turned on myself! Several editors have told you that you need to use edit summaries with your changes, and you haven't been listening. Also, I'd strongly suggest checking the "Show preview on first edit" book, but I won't beg for it like the blank edit summary one.--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TALK, please don't edit your words to remove the context of replies to them.

"Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context."

Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeb. I think that the discussion at Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong has been going well, and that many different editors are making contributions. Don't be oversensitive! By Wikipedia standards, what you see now is peace and harmony. It is a confusing page to understand. Some people who see your contributions imagine that you are trying to assert ownership of the page. Since I observe that you are willing to dialogue and negotiate, I don't think that is the case. Your arguments have made people pay more attention to what H. W. Armstrong was really up to than they otherwise would.

Just be patient, the progress is very slow at the moment. You jumped over to Jossi's page when the IP editor reverted you, but it might have been better to take a step back and see what people were commenting on. The referencing issues are very confusing; I don't know how to vote in the straw poll because I don't understand it well enough. So imagine that the other editors have some confusion as well, and don't try to go too fast. EdJohnston 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.--SarekOfVulcan 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case on the subject of your edits to the Armstrong-related articles has been filed. Please place your statement in the case at your earliest convenience. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 16:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jebbrady for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Lisasmall 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jebbrady, it appears you've been told this several times, but I'm going to state it firmly: you should edit under only under the username Jebbrady, and not under any of the IP addresses you've been using. To get this point across, I've blocked the IP addresses you've been using--you'll still be able to use your named account from those locations, but you cannot edit as those IP addresses. The reason for this is that your use of IP addresses has been identified as a problem by several different users. (This is, of course, in addition to several other problems people have identified in your editing behavior.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the arbitrators' request, I have opened a user conduct RFC regarding your actions on the Armstrong articles. There is a section for you to respond: I hope you will do so.--SarekOfVulcan 21:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to alert you to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan, as you might want to argue against my being trusted with the mop and pail.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:QAnon, you may be blocked from editing. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for opinions on conspiracy theories. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]