-- Irelan12 ( talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Welcome!
Hello, Irelan12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{
helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Dave Winer , is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Meters ( talk) 21:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 23:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-- Irelan12 ( talk) 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Please be sure to edit with a neutral point of view, particularly on articles where you may have a Conflict of Interest.
This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet of
Nirelan (
talk ·
contribs ·
global contribs ·
page moves ·
user creation ·
block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. —
Tom Morris (
talk) 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Nothing I have done violates the rules of Wikipedia. The editors of Dave Winer simply do not like that I added things that do not flatter the subject. They have been allowed to add things that are obvioulsy not true. Editthispage.com is listed as a Winer creation in the article, when the link that is used as a reference to it shows a screen shot that says it was a Userland Software website. I realize it is his company, but rules are rules. We can't just include things to make someone sound important or billions of people would need Wikis. Regarding my former account, it was banned for disagreeing with these same people. Notice that I never vandalized the article, back then. Also, the edits that I got banned for making, such as removing the claim that he invented RSS, are now part of the article. I shouldn't be banned for FIXING UNTRUE STATEMENTS. The proof that what I said was correct is that the current article reflects what I said. The three revert rule should not apply to one removing misstatements added by someone who personally knows the topic of the article.
Decline reason:
If you are banned, or blocked, under your former account then creating a new account is block evasion, which does indeed violate the rules of wikipedia. A block is applied to the person, not to the account name.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:44, 30 April 2012 (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.
Additionally, although your block as
Nirelan was in 2007, the
Wikipedia:Standard offer cannot reasonably apply in your case. You immediately began editing under this new account in the same
tendentious manner that you were blocked for in 2007. --
RA (
talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Striking: the 2007 account was not blocked indefinitely. --
RA (
talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you not understand that the things I was editing are not true? Is this a site for made up ideas or a site that is meant ot be an Encyclopedia? We are supposed to edit out the untruths.--
Irelan12 (
talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please read the comment posted above. I am only blocked because people who want untrue information to stay are complaining. I have done nothing wrong. If having a new account that I have done nothing wrong with is against the rules then please unblock the old account.
Decline reason:
If you wish to have your other account unblocked, make your request there. Since you have not addressed any of the reasons for your block(s), including block evasion, which is expressly against Wikipedia policy, I doubt that it will be granted there either. Danger High voltage! 22:32, 30 April 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Read the above comment. No one is block evading. I didn't even remember that account was blocked and I don't know the password. How do you become unblocked if making a new account and following the rules is against the rules. Also, why are we still allowing incorrect info to be in the article?-- Irelan12 ( talk) 22:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
This can't be a block evading sock puppet, because the other account is not blocked and has not been for five years. (It also has not been used in five years.) The conflict of interest still exists, and you'll need to deal with this, but this account is in no way guilty of what it has been blocked for. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dave Winer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Youreally can 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you even understand what you are saying? I have shown that I took out untrue information. You edited it to reflect the untruths, but you have not shown anything new that makes it true.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I provided proof in the talk page that the comments I deleted were untrue. Read the talk page and see; I clearly stated that the company Dave Winer worked for made the things listed. The company's page clearly says so. If they simply undo my changes, which are shown to be correct by adding info in the discussion page they are at fault. They are edit warring. Irelan12 ( talk) 3:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Whether you're right or not is immaterial. You are not allowed to edit war on Wikipedia, even if you are posting 100% pure truth. When edits are disputed, you are expected to discuss them, not repeatedly re-do them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Irelan12 ( talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The policy is very simple: you must not edit war even if you believe that you're right. Max Semenik ( talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Read the above post. I did not edit war. I undid someone who was vandalizing the article. Irelan12 ( talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Content disputes are not vandalism. You are on very thin ice; I suggest you step back from that article and restrict yourself to the talk page until you gain consensus for your proposed edits. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 20:11, 1 May 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See post above. Then tell me how to take out information that is proven untrue, if they want to put untrue information in. Do they just get to say we got together and decided to put false information here? Irelan12 ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nick,
edit warring is no way to improve articles. In all likelihood, it will only get you blocked forever. If the
Dave Winer article is wrong then it has been wrong for some time (years even?). A few more days, or even months, won't hurt. Have a cup of tea then go for a walk.
Wikipedia articles are written based on
Wikipedia:Consensus and
Wikipedia:Verifiability. They are NOT based on
truth.
jpgordon, is right to warn you above that you are on very thin ice. Please, sit out your block, read the policies linked above and, when your block has expired, consider editing pages not related to
Dave Winer.
NB: If you post another unblock request to this page, you will risk having your access to this page revoked and/or your block extended. --
RA (
talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (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.
The point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia is open to everyone and sometimes you need to ask for help. Sorry if it seemed liked I'm interefering but I just wanted to have my say because I understand where you are coming from and I know how frustrating it can be when you're being treated like a vandal and have no idea what to do. Gorlack36 ( talk) 20:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ive read what you guys keep posting, but you do not seem to read what I have said. We agreed he did not make the listed website. Then they undid me taking something we agreed he didn't make out of the article.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ark, I can provide an actual Screenshot that shows Editthispge.com was a Userland site. I can also show that Winer, himself, said that Userland made the site, by refering to the creators as "we" I can show that ark agreed Userland made the site. That means they can not continue to claim Dave and not Userland ran the site. You are nothing short of a liar. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Gorlack36 ( talk), I have been neutral. However, when someone trys to get me banned so they can include something I have shown them is not true, he is liying.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
And if you think you've been bullied or attacked or anything like that... ignore that person and contact an admin. It's far easier for everyone if (for example), I call you an idiot and you inform an admin instead of calling me an idiot in response and getting in a war of name calling. It's less work for the admins, it's less stress for us and more importantly, you won't get into trouble.
Gorgak, thats reasonable if someone will fix the problem. However, as I have shown even when I post screen shots they include things that are untrue. Instead of trying to focus on saying I did something wrong, lets fix the article.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Read above. An admin just told me to let the page be wrong? So its ok to post lies? I am not trying to cause problems, but seriously, how do you remove untrue info when people are going to fight like this? Irelan12 ( talk) 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have altered your block so that you cannot edit this talk page in order to prevent further use of the {{ unblock}} template. Please read through the comments and advice, including the links, left during previous declines of your request to be unblocked. Regards, -- RA ( talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (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.
Hi, Sorry if you're feeling frustrated.
Cheers, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Joe you seem to be a reasonable man. I talked about Editithispage.com being a Userland website and not Dave Winer's and added that a screen shot listed in the article's reference proves that. The others agreed. That means I should be able to remove anything that says Winer made the site. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Joe, I can provide an actual Screenshot that shows Editthispge.com was a Userland site. I can also show that Winer, himself, said that Userland made the site, by refering to the creators as "we" I can show that ark agreed Userland made the site. That means they can not continue to claim Dave and not Userland ran the site. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Per community discussion here, you're indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. You may appeal this sanction via UTRS or BASC. Max Semenik ( talk) 09:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
-- Irelan12 ( talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Welcome!
Hello, Irelan12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{
helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Dave Winer , is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Meters ( talk) 21:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 23:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
-- Irelan12 ( talk) 23:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Please be sure to edit with a neutral point of view, particularly on articles where you may have a Conflict of Interest.
This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet of
Nirelan (
talk ·
contribs ·
global contribs ·
page moves ·
user creation ·
block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. —
Tom Morris (
talk) 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Nothing I have done violates the rules of Wikipedia. The editors of Dave Winer simply do not like that I added things that do not flatter the subject. They have been allowed to add things that are obvioulsy not true. Editthispage.com is listed as a Winer creation in the article, when the link that is used as a reference to it shows a screen shot that says it was a Userland Software website. I realize it is his company, but rules are rules. We can't just include things to make someone sound important or billions of people would need Wikis. Regarding my former account, it was banned for disagreeing with these same people. Notice that I never vandalized the article, back then. Also, the edits that I got banned for making, such as removing the claim that he invented RSS, are now part of the article. I shouldn't be banned for FIXING UNTRUE STATEMENTS. The proof that what I said was correct is that the current article reflects what I said. The three revert rule should not apply to one removing misstatements added by someone who personally knows the topic of the article.
Decline reason:
If you are banned, or blocked, under your former account then creating a new account is block evasion, which does indeed violate the rules of wikipedia. A block is applied to the person, not to the account name.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:44, 30 April 2012 (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.
Additionally, although your block as
Nirelan was in 2007, the
Wikipedia:Standard offer cannot reasonably apply in your case. You immediately began editing under this new account in the same
tendentious manner that you were blocked for in 2007. --
RA (
talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Striking: the 2007 account was not blocked indefinitely. --
RA (
talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you not understand that the things I was editing are not true? Is this a site for made up ideas or a site that is meant ot be an Encyclopedia? We are supposed to edit out the untruths.--
Irelan12 (
talk) 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please read the comment posted above. I am only blocked because people who want untrue information to stay are complaining. I have done nothing wrong. If having a new account that I have done nothing wrong with is against the rules then please unblock the old account.
Decline reason:
If you wish to have your other account unblocked, make your request there. Since you have not addressed any of the reasons for your block(s), including block evasion, which is expressly against Wikipedia policy, I doubt that it will be granted there either. Danger High voltage! 22:32, 30 April 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Read the above comment. No one is block evading. I didn't even remember that account was blocked and I don't know the password. How do you become unblocked if making a new account and following the rules is against the rules. Also, why are we still allowing incorrect info to be in the article?-- Irelan12 ( talk) 22:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
This can't be a block evading sock puppet, because the other account is not blocked and has not been for five years. (It also has not been used in five years.) The conflict of interest still exists, and you'll need to deal with this, but this account is in no way guilty of what it has been blocked for. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 23:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Dave Winer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Youreally can 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you even understand what you are saying? I have shown that I took out untrue information. You edited it to reflect the untruths, but you have not shown anything new that makes it true.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I provided proof in the talk page that the comments I deleted were untrue. Read the talk page and see; I clearly stated that the company Dave Winer worked for made the things listed. The company's page clearly says so. If they simply undo my changes, which are shown to be correct by adding info in the discussion page they are at fault. They are edit warring. Irelan12 ( talk) 3:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Whether you're right or not is immaterial. You are not allowed to edit war on Wikipedia, even if you are posting 100% pure truth. When edits are disputed, you are expected to discuss them, not repeatedly re-do them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 19:26, 1 May 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Irelan12 ( talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The policy is very simple: you must not edit war even if you believe that you're right. Max Semenik ( talk) 20:01, 1 May 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Read the above post. I did not edit war. I undid someone who was vandalizing the article. Irelan12 ( talk) 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Content disputes are not vandalism. You are on very thin ice; I suggest you step back from that article and restrict yourself to the talk page until you gain consensus for your proposed edits. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 20:11, 1 May 2012 (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.
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See post above. Then tell me how to take out information that is proven untrue, if they want to put untrue information in. Do they just get to say we got together and decided to put false information here? Irelan12 ( talk) 20:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nick,
edit warring is no way to improve articles. In all likelihood, it will only get you blocked forever. If the
Dave Winer article is wrong then it has been wrong for some time (years even?). A few more days, or even months, won't hurt. Have a cup of tea then go for a walk.
Wikipedia articles are written based on
Wikipedia:Consensus and
Wikipedia:Verifiability. They are NOT based on
truth.
jpgordon, is right to warn you above that you are on very thin ice. Please, sit out your block, read the policies linked above and, when your block has expired, consider editing pages not related to
Dave Winer.
NB: If you post another unblock request to this page, you will risk having your access to this page revoked and/or your block extended. --
RA (
talk) 21:40, 1 May 2012 (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.
The point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia is open to everyone and sometimes you need to ask for help. Sorry if it seemed liked I'm interefering but I just wanted to have my say because I understand where you are coming from and I know how frustrating it can be when you're being treated like a vandal and have no idea what to do. Gorlack36 ( talk) 20:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ive read what you guys keep posting, but you do not seem to read what I have said. We agreed he did not make the listed website. Then they undid me taking something we agreed he didn't make out of the article.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Ark, I can provide an actual Screenshot that shows Editthispge.com was a Userland site. I can also show that Winer, himself, said that Userland made the site, by refering to the creators as "we" I can show that ark agreed Userland made the site. That means they can not continue to claim Dave and not Userland ran the site. You are nothing short of a liar. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Gorlack36 ( talk), I have been neutral. However, when someone trys to get me banned so they can include something I have shown them is not true, he is liying.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
And if you think you've been bullied or attacked or anything like that... ignore that person and contact an admin. It's far easier for everyone if (for example), I call you an idiot and you inform an admin instead of calling me an idiot in response and getting in a war of name calling. It's less work for the admins, it's less stress for us and more importantly, you won't get into trouble.
Gorgak, thats reasonable if someone will fix the problem. However, as I have shown even when I post screen shots they include things that are untrue. Instead of trying to focus on saying I did something wrong, lets fix the article.-- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Irelan12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Read above. An admin just told me to let the page be wrong? So its ok to post lies? I am not trying to cause problems, but seriously, how do you remove untrue info when people are going to fight like this? Irelan12 ( talk) 21:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have altered your block so that you cannot edit this talk page in order to prevent further use of the {{ unblock}} template. Please read through the comments and advice, including the links, left during previous declines of your request to be unblocked. Regards, -- RA ( talk) 22:00, 1 May 2012 (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.
Hi, Sorry if you're feeling frustrated.
Cheers, JoeSperrazza ( talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Joe you seem to be a reasonable man. I talked about Editithispage.com being a Userland website and not Dave Winer's and added that a screen shot listed in the article's reference proves that. The others agreed. That means I should be able to remove anything that says Winer made the site. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Joe, I can provide an actual Screenshot that shows Editthispge.com was a Userland site. I can also show that Winer, himself, said that Userland made the site, by refering to the creators as "we" I can show that ark agreed Userland made the site. That means they can not continue to claim Dave and not Userland ran the site. -- Irelan12 ( talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Per community discussion here, you're indefinitely banned from English Wikipedia. You may appeal this sanction via UTRS or BASC. Max Semenik ( talk) 09:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)