{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. This editor has returned to edit warring following a block from edit warring. This user's contributions are oriented almost exclusively toward promoting well documented, fraudulent claims as fact. Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. - Rklawton ( talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Big wheels keeps on turning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason for your block, which is edit-warring. Moreover, after looking at your recent edits, it is indeed fair to describe them as promoting apparently fraudulent fringe theories, such as purported free energy machines. Sandstein 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Big wheels keeps on turning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Please read what the previous admin who declined this request wrote before. ⇦ REDVƎRS ⇨ 07:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Big wheels keeps on turning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As above, accused falsely of thought crimes (scientific heresies) which I actually do not have and am not committing or promoting. :The rules perfectly clear and understand them. -- Big wheels keeps on turning ( talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After looking at [1] and [2], it is clear that you do not understand our basic policies which prohibit edit warring. Just because you think you're right does not give you the right to continue to engage in edit warring or otherwise POV-pushing on multiple articles. – MuZemike 03:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
When you have an opportunity to respond could you tell me if you are Gaby de Wilde?-- OMCV ( talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the connection between your words- you say that you do not support the idea that the Meyer fuel cell works, and are only interested in correcting the detail about Laughton- and your edits - which change the detail about Laughton and also change the beginning of the article to claim that the fuel cell works, while removing information about 'perpetual motion machines'. You are focusing your defense of yourself on the detail about Laughton, but the people who object to your edits are, I think, more interested in the claim that the fuel cell works and is not a "perpetual motion machine." There are people in the discussion who do know the science, as you can see by reviewing the talk page archives, but your discussions have only focused on whether Laughton should be described as a witness, and don't seem to address the more significant changes you are making. I tried to help you avoid this indefinite block- I explained to you that the changes you were making that didn't relate to Laughton were important, and that you should address them rather than simply discussing Laughton. I warned you about the rules against edit-warring, and gave you a very short block to let you know that those rules really are enforced. And when I saw that you were getting back into the edit-war, I warned you that the next block would probably be much longer. I can't tell whether you're a person with information we need, or someone who's deliberately using the paragraph about Laughton as a distraction while inserting fringe views into the article, because your discussions are so different from what's actually in the edits you're making. But I know that there isn't anything more I can do to help, and I did try. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen, you are an reasonable well educated adult capable of intelligence and with some integrity.
There is are subtle difference between "works", "works as claimed or stated" and "has/had an effect". Yes, Meyer's cell has an effect. We do not know what effect is except that it was not electrolysis as per prior art.
I have never stated or claimed that it "worked as stated or claimed". This is what those caught in the exaggerated dichomoty cannot perceive. Their prejudice is binding them to the belief that I am in some opposite camp from them. I am not. Do I understand the science? Yes. Do I dispute the science? No. I am not a child. I have expertise in one of the many areas this topic engages with.
Before any discussion is held, one has to accept certain preset about the Wikipedia.
And, lastly,
So, do you really want an intelligent response or discussion ... and would intelligent discussion on such a topic really be possible?
In my opinion, it is not.
I am sorry but the irrational defence and re-insertion of information that has been point out to be entirely false, and the cheap slurs used in both edits and summaries clearly prove this ... and that the individuals doing so lack integrity, expertise and professionalism.
To me, it appears that your comments are just a distraction from the real issue.
In short, you would rather come here and enjoying gloating rather than go to the article and remove falsehoods about a living person.
Would you care to prove me wrong? -- Big wheels keeps on turning ( talk) 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-admiral-sir-anthony-griffin-1359602.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney ( talk) 17:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. This editor has returned to edit warring following a block from edit warring. This user's contributions are oriented almost exclusively toward promoting well documented, fraudulent claims as fact. Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories. - Rklawton ( talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Big wheels keeps on turning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
This does not address the reason for your block, which is edit-warring. Moreover, after looking at your recent edits, it is indeed fair to describe them as promoting apparently fraudulent fringe theories, such as purported free energy machines. Sandstein 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Big wheels keeps on turning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Please read what the previous admin who declined this request wrote before. ⇦ REDVƎRS ⇨ 07:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
Big wheels keeps on turning ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
As above, accused falsely of thought crimes (scientific heresies) which I actually do not have and am not committing or promoting. :The rules perfectly clear and understand them. -- Big wheels keeps on turning ( talk) 03:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After looking at [1] and [2], it is clear that you do not understand our basic policies which prohibit edit warring. Just because you think you're right does not give you the right to continue to engage in edit warring or otherwise POV-pushing on multiple articles. – MuZemike 03:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
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.
When you have an opportunity to respond could you tell me if you are Gaby de Wilde?-- OMCV ( talk) 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the connection between your words- you say that you do not support the idea that the Meyer fuel cell works, and are only interested in correcting the detail about Laughton- and your edits - which change the detail about Laughton and also change the beginning of the article to claim that the fuel cell works, while removing information about 'perpetual motion machines'. You are focusing your defense of yourself on the detail about Laughton, but the people who object to your edits are, I think, more interested in the claim that the fuel cell works and is not a "perpetual motion machine." There are people in the discussion who do know the science, as you can see by reviewing the talk page archives, but your discussions have only focused on whether Laughton should be described as a witness, and don't seem to address the more significant changes you are making. I tried to help you avoid this indefinite block- I explained to you that the changes you were making that didn't relate to Laughton were important, and that you should address them rather than simply discussing Laughton. I warned you about the rules against edit-warring, and gave you a very short block to let you know that those rules really are enforced. And when I saw that you were getting back into the edit-war, I warned you that the next block would probably be much longer. I can't tell whether you're a person with information we need, or someone who's deliberately using the paragraph about Laughton as a distraction while inserting fringe views into the article, because your discussions are so different from what's actually in the edits you're making. But I know that there isn't anything more I can do to help, and I did try. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen, you are an reasonable well educated adult capable of intelligence and with some integrity.
There is are subtle difference between "works", "works as claimed or stated" and "has/had an effect". Yes, Meyer's cell has an effect. We do not know what effect is except that it was not electrolysis as per prior art.
I have never stated or claimed that it "worked as stated or claimed". This is what those caught in the exaggerated dichomoty cannot perceive. Their prejudice is binding them to the belief that I am in some opposite camp from them. I am not. Do I understand the science? Yes. Do I dispute the science? No. I am not a child. I have expertise in one of the many areas this topic engages with.
Before any discussion is held, one has to accept certain preset about the Wikipedia.
And, lastly,
So, do you really want an intelligent response or discussion ... and would intelligent discussion on such a topic really be possible?
In my opinion, it is not.
I am sorry but the irrational defence and re-insertion of information that has been point out to be entirely false, and the cheap slurs used in both edits and summaries clearly prove this ... and that the individuals doing so lack integrity, expertise and professionalism.
To me, it appears that your comments are just a distraction from the real issue.
In short, you would rather come here and enjoying gloating rather than go to the article and remove falsehoods about a living person.
Would you care to prove me wrong? -- Big wheels keeps on turning ( talk) 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-admiral-sir-anthony-griffin-1359602.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Anthony Griffin (Royal Navy officer) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney ( talk) 17:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)