Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Lucid dream, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop adding the so-called "Errau" theory in the article. The sources you are using are not reliable. Blogspots and other wikis are not reliable sources. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Lucid dream. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Lucid Dream. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Lucid Dream. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Lucid dream, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Your so-called "new" citations are false. They do not mention the "Erraou theory anywhere. It is simply not an encyclopedic theory and Wikipedia cannot be used as an incubator for new and untried theories. You will be reported and blocked if you continue your edit-warring. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Also please check our conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own theories. Especially if they are not notable. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately there can be no one-time exemptions to Wikipedia's policies. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:47, 1 April 2011 (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 halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 11:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have warned you above about avoiding personal attacks, that was followed by
this edit. Please consider this as a final warning.
Materialscientist (
talk)
12:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I was not going to include this in my report, you are right, this isn't an actual crime (so to speak) I was just bringing to your attention to strangeness of Dr.K's behaviour
Nope. You're being a pest. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop making unfounded sock puppet accusations against Seb az86556. You provide no suspected socks, no evidence whatsoever. Please stop! Jarkeld ( talk) 15:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seb az86556, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jarkeld ( talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No-one seems to have properly welcomed you, so,
Welcome!
Hello, Swe41, 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:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Now, you seem to have run into strife right from the start. Not a brilliant thing, but liveable. First of all, it's highly unlikely a well-established user will run a separate IP just to vandalise, so your sockpuppet report is probably misplaced. Don't worry though, I doubt you'll be punished for a failed case. Secondly, per the talk page guidlines, you should rarely, if ever, remove or alter the statements of others. Don't worry too much about breaking so many rules if you're new, everyone does it. If you need help or advice, try asking at the help desk, keep questions short and concise! Lastly, never, never, ever, edit under an anonymous IP. As you've seen, bad things happen. Additionally, don't ask others for their IP address, not considered polite. Oh well, hope your experience picks up soon, Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now deleted your SPI case against Seb for the second time. Twice now you have failed to provide any actual evidence, and I'm pretty sure you're doing this merely as revenge. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I was roaming the AN/I board when I came across your report. First of all let me say that I do not know Dr K nor Seb, nor am I an admin. I am not a prolific editor of any stripe but I have been around here and nosed into enough cases on the notice board that your current course will lead to a great deal of stress, frustration and general discontent with Wikipedia which may ultimately end with you being indefinitely blocked. I emphasise that this is not a threat as I do not have the tools to do anything of the sort. As I understand it, you're fairly new here, so at the risk of seeming somewhat condescending (if it does sound that way, I apologise, I want to start off on common ground), I might give a few suggestions. It is entirely up to you whether you take my suggestions at face value or not, there will be no hard feelings.
First of all, it seems that you've been bitten somewhat. This can happen when a new user shows up and tries to do too much at once and other more long time editors will see this and start throwing wiki policies around assuming you are familiar with them. It is highly advisable to take the time to read the links that others send you to, as I have this WP:BITE.
Secondly, I read that you have been trying to edit the Lucid Dreams article with what is being seen as original research. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia as per this policy WP:OR. Wikipedia is a tertiary source meaning that it is only allowed to publish information which has already been published elsewhere, which brings on the second and third pieces of advice. Any edits made to an article must be verified, as per WP:V, by reliable sources, as per WP:RS. These are very important policies that help protect Wikipedia from legal proceedings for allowing libelous entries, but they also serve to ensure that everything entered is confirmed elsewhere.
This follows on nicely to conflict of interest, covered by WP:COI. Although it is not forbidden for editors to edit articles with which they have an interest or are affiliated with, but this affiliation must be made known so that other editors can scrutinise the edits to ensure that they conform to a neutral point of view, as per WP:NPOV.
Now, I've also had a look at your interactions with Dr K. Now, I see you raised a few complaints about how he was removing your posts to his talk page. All users are allowed to do this. The talk pages are for communicating with each other, but if an editor dislikes any posts to his page s/he is entitled to remove such posts. This is not an attempt to hide or remove evidence of malfeasance. All edits entered into Wikipedia are saved in the page histories which are accessible via the view history tab at the top of the page. Any editor may look into the page history and see what actions have been performed on the page. Looking at particular entries in the history page is accessing the different versions of the pages between edits, these are known as "diffs", which admins will often request when editors raise claims of policy violation. Only admins are able to delete actual edits, which is sometimes done in the case of potential real world ramifications as in the case of protecting minors, threats of violence/suicide, outing of an editor's real identity (this is covered in WP:OUT).
My final point is a clarification. You've misunderstood the "special contributions" of an editor. This is not some special standing or ranking system. It is actually the page that lists your contributions to Wikipedia. At the top of your screen, you'll find "My Contributions" clicking on that will call up your edits to Wiki. If you look at the address bar, it'll have something like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/<username>. The "special" refers to the fact that the contributions exist in a particular wiki space. Another example is user space; user space is addressed as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:<username>.
The final thing, which is the most important piece of advice I can give, is to bear first and foremost in mind the assumption of good faith, WP:AGF. Hopefully I've cleared a few things up. Let me emphasise again that I'm not trying to berate you for your actions, and if it looks that way I'll apologise before any misunderstandings arise. Best regards -- Blackmane ( talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Swe41 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
OMG. This has been a HUGE misunderstanding. I have just looked at the comment made on Dr.K's discussion page, and I assure you 100% that I did not, or take any part in writing that abusive comment. My evidence is as follows:
Please make the right decisionSwe41 (talk) 1:42 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Sorry. You're the using the same computer as the IP you claimed. You are, in fact, the only user of the IP that made the edit in question. TN X Man 18:22, 4 April 2011 (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.
I'd have to chime here. If you'll check my talk page history, his response to me was at 16:40 while the attack occurred at 16:41. If it were swe41 posting as the ip, it would have to be some pretty quick work to respond on my talk page, log out and hit Dr K's page within a minute even using tabs in a browser especially allowing for a busy LAN's response time etc etc. Just a thought.....-- Blackmane ( talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Swe41 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In response to the comments above, I found out who did it, and I assure you that this will not happen again.
Also, yet again, please assume good faith of myself, as I did not make the comment, and as Blackmane pointed out, It would be very unlikely for me to have done so anyway, and as I said, I have taken the appropriate measures to ensure that this does not happen again. And I suppose that I could make yet another apology to Dr.K (on behalf of the person who did it)...so there isn't much more I can say really. I didn't do It. I found you who did it. It will not happen again. I will apologise to Dr.K, I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia as it is only fair.
Kind regards Swe41 ( talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per my comment below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 5 April 2011 (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.
Let's assume, for the moment, that someone else sat down at your computer and logged you out to post anonymously. Why would they attack someone with whom you were in a dispute, unless they discussed it with you or were otherwise familiar with the situation? The timing is also suspect - as noted, posts were within one minute of each other, from the same computer. Which means you were standing there when this other person posted. Even if it is indeed multiple individuals, when they edit in concert (as appears to be the case here), it is termed Meatpuppetry. For the purposes of the enforcement of policy, such editors (or editors and IPs, as here) are treated as one individual. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Swe41 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
to reply to the decline reason above, Let me remind you that I am on a Local network, meaning that there are approximately 350 computers in the college grounds connected to the one IP address, and each computer user can consequently look at each user's history (which is how they found Dr.K's talk page, through looking at the local history). This happened to be during the time when I was on. But let me remind you that I was talking to Blackmane at the time of this occuring (and let me remind you ZEBEDEE that Blackmane did not agree with you, he only accepted the fact that it was a possibility).
And let me also remind you that If I had desired to abuse Dr.K, I would have hidden my IP to cover myself-this is a fact.
Finally, when looking at all my 3 appeals, it is clear to everyone that the evidence that I have shown far outweighs any counter-arguments or questions from the Admin. I can only assume that the only reason to why you are continuing to block me is because of prejudices and "past experiences", which is a direct violation of WP:AGF-assumption of good faith, and WP:COMMONSENSE- use of common sense.
So please please please please please unblock me so I can continue contributing to Wikipedia!!!!, and I assure you that this will not happen again, and my name will never be included in any negative way ever again!!!!!!!!
Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As an uninvolved admin, I am declining your unblock request. The evidence is quite clear and you are still being abusive even on this talk page. Now instead of denying knowing anything about the IP, you are now going with a WP:BROTHER excuse. Please note that continuing to make essentially the same unblock request without addressing the reasons for your block will result in your talk page privileges being revoked. -- Selket Talk 16:32, 5 April 2011 (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.
Just to make it clear what is being said about your edits - the evidence is that both you and the IP edited from the same *computer*, not just from the same IP address, so how do you explain that? And as for the "Blackmane" argument, it makes no difference whether or not Blackmane agrees, because I provided conclusive proof of how simple it is to edit from a logged-in account and from an IP at the same time using the same computer - so any argument that you would be unlikely to be able to do it is nonsense. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Zebedee, I WAS NOT USING THE SAME GOD-DAMN COMPUTER AS THE PERSON WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry if that seemed aggressive, but I hate it when people accuse you of something you haven't done.
Where is the evidence to suggest that the same computer was used?? Swe41 ( talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Seb was aggresive, but was he reprimanded? No is the answer. And note that I apologised for that outburst-something that Seb failed to do.
Despite your generous offer to ask for more information, I must politely decline your offer, though I appreciate it.
Wow. Just wow. I am being accused of something I have not done. The admin dealing with this are biased. That's a simple fact. You are accusing me of personal attacks, and yet Zebedee is clearly just picking on me. None of the Admin are weighing your own accusations against my evidence. You do not even consider it. Zebedee criticises the use of shouting, but clearly, he turned his head when I filed a report against Seb for Shouting at me, swearing, and calling me a pest. He is therefore a hypocrite. That is a fact.
Now I see that I cannot win, because none of you are true unbiased admin of wikipedia. I tried to be nice. I tried to take in your points. I tried to do the right thing, to report Seb for swearing and shouting. I apologised to both Blackmane and Dr.K for tampering inappropriately with the lucid dreams article. I accept that. But I know that I have been falsely accused, and I know that no one can see sense (despite what that obviously faulty Checkuser software says), and I know that I cannot appeal. So though this angers me, I will take the advice of Zebedee, I will keep a cool head, by knowing that everyone else is wrong, and I will ask you this question:
At what point will I be unblocked??? (I do note that It says that I have been blocked indefinitely)
regards Swe41 ( talk) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I do know alot about computers.
Kind regards Swe41 ( talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent contributions! - 129.49.72.78 ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Lucid dream, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop adding the so-called "Errau" theory in the article. The sources you are using are not reliable. Blogspots and other wikis are not reliable sources. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Lucid dream. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Lucid Dream. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Lucid Dream. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Lucid dream, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Your so-called "new" citations are false. They do not mention the "Erraou theory anywhere. It is simply not an encyclopedic theory and Wikipedia cannot be used as an incubator for new and untried theories. You will be reported and blocked if you continue your edit-warring. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Also please check our conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own theories. Especially if they are not notable. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately there can be no one-time exemptions to Wikipedia's policies. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:47, 1 April 2011 (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 halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 11:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I have warned you above about avoiding personal attacks, that was followed by
this edit. Please consider this as a final warning.
Materialscientist (
talk)
12:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I was not going to include this in my report, you are right, this isn't an actual crime (so to speak) I was just bringing to your attention to strangeness of Dr.K's behaviour
Nope. You're being a pest. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop making unfounded sock puppet accusations against Seb az86556. You provide no suspected socks, no evidence whatsoever. Please stop! Jarkeld ( talk) 15:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seb az86556, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jarkeld ( talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
No-one seems to have properly welcomed you, so,
Welcome!
Hello, Swe41, 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:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Now, you seem to have run into strife right from the start. Not a brilliant thing, but liveable. First of all, it's highly unlikely a well-established user will run a separate IP just to vandalise, so your sockpuppet report is probably misplaced. Don't worry though, I doubt you'll be punished for a failed case. Secondly, per the talk page guidlines, you should rarely, if ever, remove or alter the statements of others. Don't worry too much about breaking so many rules if you're new, everyone does it. If you need help or advice, try asking at the help desk, keep questions short and concise! Lastly, never, never, ever, edit under an anonymous IP. As you've seen, bad things happen. Additionally, don't ask others for their IP address, not considered polite. Oh well, hope your experience picks up soon, Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 16:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have now deleted your SPI case against Seb for the second time. Twice now you have failed to provide any actual evidence, and I'm pretty sure you're doing this merely as revenge. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this manner, you will be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I was roaming the AN/I board when I came across your report. First of all let me say that I do not know Dr K nor Seb, nor am I an admin. I am not a prolific editor of any stripe but I have been around here and nosed into enough cases on the notice board that your current course will lead to a great deal of stress, frustration and general discontent with Wikipedia which may ultimately end with you being indefinitely blocked. I emphasise that this is not a threat as I do not have the tools to do anything of the sort. As I understand it, you're fairly new here, so at the risk of seeming somewhat condescending (if it does sound that way, I apologise, I want to start off on common ground), I might give a few suggestions. It is entirely up to you whether you take my suggestions at face value or not, there will be no hard feelings.
First of all, it seems that you've been bitten somewhat. This can happen when a new user shows up and tries to do too much at once and other more long time editors will see this and start throwing wiki policies around assuming you are familiar with them. It is highly advisable to take the time to read the links that others send you to, as I have this WP:BITE.
Secondly, I read that you have been trying to edit the Lucid Dreams article with what is being seen as original research. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia as per this policy WP:OR. Wikipedia is a tertiary source meaning that it is only allowed to publish information which has already been published elsewhere, which brings on the second and third pieces of advice. Any edits made to an article must be verified, as per WP:V, by reliable sources, as per WP:RS. These are very important policies that help protect Wikipedia from legal proceedings for allowing libelous entries, but they also serve to ensure that everything entered is confirmed elsewhere.
This follows on nicely to conflict of interest, covered by WP:COI. Although it is not forbidden for editors to edit articles with which they have an interest or are affiliated with, but this affiliation must be made known so that other editors can scrutinise the edits to ensure that they conform to a neutral point of view, as per WP:NPOV.
Now, I've also had a look at your interactions with Dr K. Now, I see you raised a few complaints about how he was removing your posts to his talk page. All users are allowed to do this. The talk pages are for communicating with each other, but if an editor dislikes any posts to his page s/he is entitled to remove such posts. This is not an attempt to hide or remove evidence of malfeasance. All edits entered into Wikipedia are saved in the page histories which are accessible via the view history tab at the top of the page. Any editor may look into the page history and see what actions have been performed on the page. Looking at particular entries in the history page is accessing the different versions of the pages between edits, these are known as "diffs", which admins will often request when editors raise claims of policy violation. Only admins are able to delete actual edits, which is sometimes done in the case of potential real world ramifications as in the case of protecting minors, threats of violence/suicide, outing of an editor's real identity (this is covered in WP:OUT).
My final point is a clarification. You've misunderstood the "special contributions" of an editor. This is not some special standing or ranking system. It is actually the page that lists your contributions to Wikipedia. At the top of your screen, you'll find "My Contributions" clicking on that will call up your edits to Wiki. If you look at the address bar, it'll have something like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/<username>. The "special" refers to the fact that the contributions exist in a particular wiki space. Another example is user space; user space is addressed as en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:<username>.
The final thing, which is the most important piece of advice I can give, is to bear first and foremost in mind the assumption of good faith, WP:AGF. Hopefully I've cleared a few things up. Let me emphasise again that I'm not trying to berate you for your actions, and if it looks that way I'll apologise before any misunderstandings arise. Best regards -- Blackmane ( talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
17:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Swe41 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
OMG. This has been a HUGE misunderstanding. I have just looked at the comment made on Dr.K's discussion page, and I assure you 100% that I did not, or take any part in writing that abusive comment. My evidence is as follows:
Please make the right decisionSwe41 (talk) 1:42 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Sorry. You're the using the same computer as the IP you claimed. You are, in fact, the only user of the IP that made the edit in question. TN X Man 18:22, 4 April 2011 (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.
I'd have to chime here. If you'll check my talk page history, his response to me was at 16:40 while the attack occurred at 16:41. If it were swe41 posting as the ip, it would have to be some pretty quick work to respond on my talk page, log out and hit Dr K's page within a minute even using tabs in a browser especially allowing for a busy LAN's response time etc etc. Just a thought.....-- Blackmane ( talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Swe41 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In response to the comments above, I found out who did it, and I assure you that this will not happen again.
Also, yet again, please assume good faith of myself, as I did not make the comment, and as Blackmane pointed out, It would be very unlikely for me to have done so anyway, and as I said, I have taken the appropriate measures to ensure that this does not happen again. And I suppose that I could make yet another apology to Dr.K (on behalf of the person who did it)...so there isn't much more I can say really. I didn't do It. I found you who did it. It will not happen again. I will apologise to Dr.K, I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia as it is only fair.
Kind regards Swe41 ( talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per my comment below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 5 April 2011 (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.
Let's assume, for the moment, that someone else sat down at your computer and logged you out to post anonymously. Why would they attack someone with whom you were in a dispute, unless they discussed it with you or were otherwise familiar with the situation? The timing is also suspect - as noted, posts were within one minute of each other, from the same computer. Which means you were standing there when this other person posted. Even if it is indeed multiple individuals, when they edit in concert (as appears to be the case here), it is termed Meatpuppetry. For the purposes of the enforcement of policy, such editors (or editors and IPs, as here) are treated as one individual. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Swe41 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
to reply to the decline reason above, Let me remind you that I am on a Local network, meaning that there are approximately 350 computers in the college grounds connected to the one IP address, and each computer user can consequently look at each user's history (which is how they found Dr.K's talk page, through looking at the local history). This happened to be during the time when I was on. But let me remind you that I was talking to Blackmane at the time of this occuring (and let me remind you ZEBEDEE that Blackmane did not agree with you, he only accepted the fact that it was a possibility).
And let me also remind you that If I had desired to abuse Dr.K, I would have hidden my IP to cover myself-this is a fact.
Finally, when looking at all my 3 appeals, it is clear to everyone that the evidence that I have shown far outweighs any counter-arguments or questions from the Admin. I can only assume that the only reason to why you are continuing to block me is because of prejudices and "past experiences", which is a direct violation of WP:AGF-assumption of good faith, and WP:COMMONSENSE- use of common sense.
So please please please please please unblock me so I can continue contributing to Wikipedia!!!!, and I assure you that this will not happen again, and my name will never be included in any negative way ever again!!!!!!!!
Kind regards Swe41 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As an uninvolved admin, I am declining your unblock request. The evidence is quite clear and you are still being abusive even on this talk page. Now instead of denying knowing anything about the IP, you are now going with a WP:BROTHER excuse. Please note that continuing to make essentially the same unblock request without addressing the reasons for your block will result in your talk page privileges being revoked. -- Selket Talk 16:32, 5 April 2011 (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.
Just to make it clear what is being said about your edits - the evidence is that both you and the IP edited from the same *computer*, not just from the same IP address, so how do you explain that? And as for the "Blackmane" argument, it makes no difference whether or not Blackmane agrees, because I provided conclusive proof of how simple it is to edit from a logged-in account and from an IP at the same time using the same computer - so any argument that you would be unlikely to be able to do it is nonsense. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Zebedee, I WAS NOT USING THE SAME GOD-DAMN COMPUTER AS THE PERSON WHO DID IT!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry if that seemed aggressive, but I hate it when people accuse you of something you haven't done.
Where is the evidence to suggest that the same computer was used?? Swe41 ( talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, Seb was aggresive, but was he reprimanded? No is the answer. And note that I apologised for that outburst-something that Seb failed to do.
Despite your generous offer to ask for more information, I must politely decline your offer, though I appreciate it.
Wow. Just wow. I am being accused of something I have not done. The admin dealing with this are biased. That's a simple fact. You are accusing me of personal attacks, and yet Zebedee is clearly just picking on me. None of the Admin are weighing your own accusations against my evidence. You do not even consider it. Zebedee criticises the use of shouting, but clearly, he turned his head when I filed a report against Seb for Shouting at me, swearing, and calling me a pest. He is therefore a hypocrite. That is a fact.
Now I see that I cannot win, because none of you are true unbiased admin of wikipedia. I tried to be nice. I tried to take in your points. I tried to do the right thing, to report Seb for swearing and shouting. I apologised to both Blackmane and Dr.K for tampering inappropriately with the lucid dreams article. I accept that. But I know that I have been falsely accused, and I know that no one can see sense (despite what that obviously faulty Checkuser software says), and I know that I cannot appeal. So though this angers me, I will take the advice of Zebedee, I will keep a cool head, by knowing that everyone else is wrong, and I will ask you this question:
At what point will I be unblocked??? (I do note that It says that I have been blocked indefinitely)
regards Swe41 ( talk) 16:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I do know alot about computers.
Kind regards Swe41 ( talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your recent contributions! - 129.49.72.78 ( talk) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |