Who and WHY do "THEY" keep messing with me?
IF IN FACT, Inertial_Propulsion is imaginary, and totally science fiction, how does reporting facts and reported physical success in this field, challenge our imaginations beyond our reality?
I have been reposting my research on a nearly daily basis to wikipedia. The "edits" are hidden, and NOT authoratative by ANY stretch of the word!
I am an authority on this subject, because I ran the tests, I shared my experiments to be duplicated by others over many years, and they reported results (some good, some bad).
I have shared the good, and the bad. DEAL WITH IT (but quit frelling with reality!).
David E. Cowlishaw - 12:21 AM, Monday, June 6 2011
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to articles as you apparently did to
Reactionless drive. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
bobrayner (
talk) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you for at least stepping up and citing some kind of reasoning for what I consider unreasonable actions on the part of others Bob Rayner!
No original research? Are you kidding me? Years of research was reported (both failures and successes), that was also physically verified experimentally by over 20 others world-wide, and is cited on my original, and now archived (and now unalterable by me) open.org/davidc website, on both archive.go-here.com and archive.org in Europe.
The past updates on that archive collection details those years of experimental research, including the works of others on the subject around the world, beginning with the first physical verifications by James Hurl of Australia, and follows the story through to the last update before I gave up for a while out of exasperation, due to unrelenting stupidity and prejudice (don't confuse our religiously scientific dogma by citing facts).
The theory of operation I believe is clearly stated, and the "flat earth" prejudice against the subject is apparent in the overall tone and presentation of the balance of the definition of "Inertial_Propulsion". A lone dissenting voice challenging the current dogma is how ALL of science progresses past the ignorance of yesteryears.
To disallow original research is to attempt to hold ALL of science to a stable state, and ignores the dynamic nature of the search for greater truths than we currently understand.
Science is NOT a BIBLE, and DOGMA is anathema to the entire process of research! CowlishawDavid ( talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This doesn't prove a thing. If you are no longer able to modify it, that's unfortunate, as you will not be able to add any actual evidence that the device works. Has anybody else published any evidence? Reproducibility is the cornerstone of science, of course. bobrayner ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote: "To disallow original research is to attempt to hold ALL of science to a stable state, and ignores the dynamic nature of the search for greater truths than we currently understand". One thing this misses is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a place for doing original research or "challenging the current dogma". Cardamon ( talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that challenging dogma is how some science is done, but not, by any means, all.
- However, the Wikipedia is a not a science site; it is simply millions of summaries of what are generally considered to be WP:RELIABLE sources. Unfortunately material you (or I or any other editor here) have written that has not been through a peer review process or similar, cannot be included in the Wikipedia, as it is not generally considered reliable, although what it says might well be true nevertheless. The Wikipedia is verifiability over truth, and your work is not (currently) verifiable. - Rememberway ( talk) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
OK Rememberway and Bobrayner, I will try a different approach, if you both will stop trying to alter history to TOTALLY exclude my work, and the findings of many others around the world. Stay tuned!
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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. - Rememberway ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop. I strongly recommend that you either try to discuss a compromise on the article's talkpage, or you try to find some other wikipedia article to improve. Angrily pushing the same text over and over again is unhelpful. bobrayner ( talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok Bobrayner, I will refrain from posting to the main definition of Inertial_Propulsion, if you will recognize my efforts in the field in the Discussion page.
I TOTALLY understand that controversial subjects that have the mantle of Dogma on it's shoulders has an uphill battle. I only request that others look over what I have done in the field, and debate the evidence, rather than throw stones at "the other", that does NOT conform to current beliefs.
Do you have any creative suggestions for how to add the GIT (Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster) definition of machine types to the main page? It is a clearly novel approach to the subject, and has had positive (as well as negative) results in the real world.
"Force Rectifying" angular accelerations to produce linear acceleration as a "footloose" example of "tractoring" on the "Zero Point Field" has actual physical examples to give it credence, but the intolerance of science as a religion prevents rational debate, and examination.
When I whirl around on a merry-go-round, the forces I feel tugging me off of that ride, to the outside, are NOT a result of tiny bullets, impinging on me!
ALL of matter, that has "inertia" feels it's place in this universe through some kind of interaction with the universe around it.
While the "Aether" was discredited because it did NOT conform to our definition of a classical gas, the Zero Point Field (Rueda, Puthoff, and Haisch), describes a coupling of baryonic matter with it's surroundings.
This is the medium that the GIT series of thrusters "tractor" on.
I am a fairly simple guy, with beliefs engendered by my experiences, and I refuse to "toe the party line", when reality, trumps "faith".
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (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. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution welcomed. Personal attacks and your anger at WHATEVER is not helpful, nor reasonable. Your actions only strengthens my case, and validate the included thesis of irrational hindrance in this field of study. Protected status will be sought.
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 02:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Then reply at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've just blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring at Talk:Reactionless drive, so just reply here instead. Any replies you leave here will be copied to the WP:ANI discussion. Larry V ( talk | email) 05:41, 21 June 2011 (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. Larry V ( talk | email) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do not edit war. If you have a content dispute with other editors, editing back and forth is not going to get you anywhere. Seek dispute resolution if you can't work out your problems yourselves.
- Wikipedia articles cannot contain original research. This is a hard and fast policy which is non-negotiable. Content should be supported by reputable second-party sources. It's worth stating again: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is not a judgment on you or your work.
- Talk pages are for improving the articles. They are not for chit-chat, however topical that chit-chat might be.
- Note that writing about your own work is a conflict of interest and should be handled very carefully.
Please stop edit warring, contributing original research, or using talk pages as forums. Continuing any of these actions may get you blocked or banned in the future, as they disrupt the process of improving the encyclopedia. Let me know if you have any questions. Larry V ( talk | email) 06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add
unsourced content, as you did to
Reactionless drive. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Binksternet (
talk) 05:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Reactionless drive, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Repeatedly adding original research and talk in an article is against the policies of
WP:OR and
WP:DE.
Fæ (
talk) 05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Bring it on! Those that hold sway in the public, and insist on putting forward false concepts, will soon be brought down! Truth is physical, repeatable, and verifiable!
I hold myself, AND my adherants to the same standard. The "original research" includes the repeated experiments by over 20 others, that reported to me, results (both positive, and negative).
I understand that I need to overcome the fantasy of former understandings, and need to verify my claims that deviate from the norm. Stay tuned (but don't close your mind to possible new realities).''''
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 07:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted your addition [1] as have many others. It may or may not be genuinely notable, but there are a couple of obvious problems with it that until you fix, will definitely ensure it stays out: (a) no sources at all, not even bad ones (b) you've signed it. Only sign talk page posts (c) unencyclopaedic tone, e.g. "Tesla Vs Edison? Direct kinetic rocket coupling of the "inertial field" for propulsion (DC) results in a short hop to the planets (rockets), AC (Tesla) goes further (perhaps to the stars?" William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and one more thing: if you really want to make yourself look bad, then saying "Bring it on! ... Truth is physical, repeatable, and verifiable!" in bold is an excellent way to do it William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:23, 24 June 2011 (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. . - Rememberway ( talk) 10:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This comment on ANI in which you just threatened to possibly stick a pistol in the face of another editor is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia.
You are blocked from editing indefinitely. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Interesting! No I did NOT! Is hyperbole not allowed? I suggested that I was paranoid, as a result of years of antagonistic communications.
Who decides these things? How is our mutual understandings of our environment get resolved?
Apparently by reactionaries, NOT actionaries! CowlishawDavid ( talk) 07:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- "I am who I am, and you could drive up into my driveway and talk with me (but I might have a gun in your face, if you presented in such a negative, or challenging visiage)." [sic] That is a pretty obvious threat of violence, even if conditional. —Jeremy v^_^v Components: V S M 14:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
CowlishawDavid ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The result was repeated vandalism, harrang, harrassment, character assassination, name calling, and villification.
Apparently the wikipedia is a playground for bullies and blowhards.
While retreating from the torrent of abusive behavior, the GIT (Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster) did get placed back into the definition, but while a secondary edit was correct (rectified angular accelerations), that correct definition was removed, and what was left standing has totally mischaracterized the definition.
Gyroscopic precession (Eric Laithwaite's work) has nothing to do with the GIT class of mechanisms, other than as a hindrance to rapid direction changes (that can be compensated for by counter-rotating pairs).
Anyone can do a search for "Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster" and find correct examples, including a demonstration video sent to me by Britt Beaubian, then a high school student in Los Angeles. I particularly like Jean Louis Naudin of France's page on the subject, he was a very early contributor to my project.
Given that there are those that insist on malicious and false information editing, and ignorance appears to be encouraged, I would prefer NO inclusion of the GIT, to FALSE INFORMATION and slander. Are there any adults with authority in the wikipedia?
I will no longer participate in such a hostile and abusive environment.
Thank you
"David E. Cowlishaw" (search term enclosed in quotes).
CowlishawDavid (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I have to decline your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block; before making any further requests, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks — with WP:NOTTHEM, in particular — Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:34, 26 June 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.
Who and WHY do "THEY" keep messing with me?
IF IN FACT, Inertial_Propulsion is imaginary, and totally science fiction, how does reporting facts and reported physical success in this field, challenge our imaginations beyond our reality?
I have been reposting my research on a nearly daily basis to wikipedia. The "edits" are hidden, and NOT authoratative by ANY stretch of the word!
I am an authority on this subject, because I ran the tests, I shared my experiments to be duplicated by others over many years, and they reported results (some good, some bad).
I have shared the good, and the bad. DEAL WITH IT (but quit frelling with reality!).
David E. Cowlishaw - 12:21 AM, Monday, June 6 2011
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to articles as you apparently did to
Reactionless drive. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
bobrayner (
talk) 11:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well thank you for at least stepping up and citing some kind of reasoning for what I consider unreasonable actions on the part of others Bob Rayner!
No original research? Are you kidding me? Years of research was reported (both failures and successes), that was also physically verified experimentally by over 20 others world-wide, and is cited on my original, and now archived (and now unalterable by me) open.org/davidc website, on both archive.go-here.com and archive.org in Europe.
The past updates on that archive collection details those years of experimental research, including the works of others on the subject around the world, beginning with the first physical verifications by James Hurl of Australia, and follows the story through to the last update before I gave up for a while out of exasperation, due to unrelenting stupidity and prejudice (don't confuse our religiously scientific dogma by citing facts).
The theory of operation I believe is clearly stated, and the "flat earth" prejudice against the subject is apparent in the overall tone and presentation of the balance of the definition of "Inertial_Propulsion". A lone dissenting voice challenging the current dogma is how ALL of science progresses past the ignorance of yesteryears.
To disallow original research is to attempt to hold ALL of science to a stable state, and ignores the dynamic nature of the search for greater truths than we currently understand.
Science is NOT a BIBLE, and DOGMA is anathema to the entire process of research! CowlishawDavid ( talk) 15:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This doesn't prove a thing. If you are no longer able to modify it, that's unfortunate, as you will not be able to add any actual evidence that the device works. Has anybody else published any evidence? Reproducibility is the cornerstone of science, of course. bobrayner ( talk) 18:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote: "To disallow original research is to attempt to hold ALL of science to a stable state, and ignores the dynamic nature of the search for greater truths than we currently understand". One thing this misses is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a place for doing original research or "challenging the current dogma". Cardamon ( talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that challenging dogma is how some science is done, but not, by any means, all.
- However, the Wikipedia is a not a science site; it is simply millions of summaries of what are generally considered to be WP:RELIABLE sources. Unfortunately material you (or I or any other editor here) have written that has not been through a peer review process or similar, cannot be included in the Wikipedia, as it is not generally considered reliable, although what it says might well be true nevertheless. The Wikipedia is verifiability over truth, and your work is not (currently) verifiable. - Rememberway ( talk) 12:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
OK Rememberway and Bobrayner, I will try a different approach, if you both will stop trying to alter history to TOTALLY exclude my work, and the findings of many others around the world. Stay tuned!
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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. - Rememberway ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop. I strongly recommend that you either try to discuss a compromise on the article's talkpage, or you try to find some other wikipedia article to improve. Angrily pushing the same text over and over again is unhelpful. bobrayner ( talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok Bobrayner, I will refrain from posting to the main definition of Inertial_Propulsion, if you will recognize my efforts in the field in the Discussion page.
I TOTALLY understand that controversial subjects that have the mantle of Dogma on it's shoulders has an uphill battle. I only request that others look over what I have done in the field, and debate the evidence, rather than throw stones at "the other", that does NOT conform to current beliefs.
Do you have any creative suggestions for how to add the GIT (Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster) definition of machine types to the main page? It is a clearly novel approach to the subject, and has had positive (as well as negative) results in the real world.
"Force Rectifying" angular accelerations to produce linear acceleration as a "footloose" example of "tractoring" on the "Zero Point Field" has actual physical examples to give it credence, but the intolerance of science as a religion prevents rational debate, and examination.
When I whirl around on a merry-go-round, the forces I feel tugging me off of that ride, to the outside, are NOT a result of tiny bullets, impinging on me!
ALL of matter, that has "inertia" feels it's place in this universe through some kind of interaction with the universe around it.
While the "Aether" was discredited because it did NOT conform to our definition of a classical gas, the Zero Point Field (Rueda, Puthoff, and Haisch), describes a coupling of baryonic matter with it's surroundings.
This is the medium that the GIT series of thrusters "tractor" on.
I am a fairly simple guy, with beliefs engendered by my experiences, and I refuse to "toe the party line", when reality, trumps "faith".
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (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. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dispute resolution welcomed. Personal attacks and your anger at WHATEVER is not helpful, nor reasonable. Your actions only strengthens my case, and validate the included thesis of irrational hindrance in this field of study. Protected status will be sought.
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 02:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Then reply at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've just blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring at Talk:Reactionless drive, so just reply here instead. Any replies you leave here will be copied to the WP:ANI discussion. Larry V ( talk | email) 05:41, 21 June 2011 (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. Larry V ( talk | email) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do not edit war. If you have a content dispute with other editors, editing back and forth is not going to get you anywhere. Seek dispute resolution if you can't work out your problems yourselves.
- Wikipedia articles cannot contain original research. This is a hard and fast policy which is non-negotiable. Content should be supported by reputable second-party sources. It's worth stating again: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is not a judgment on you or your work.
- Talk pages are for improving the articles. They are not for chit-chat, however topical that chit-chat might be.
- Note that writing about your own work is a conflict of interest and should be handled very carefully.
Please stop edit warring, contributing original research, or using talk pages as forums. Continuing any of these actions may get you blocked or banned in the future, as they disrupt the process of improving the encyclopedia. Let me know if you have any questions. Larry V ( talk | email) 06:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add
unsourced content, as you did to
Reactionless drive. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Binksternet (
talk) 05:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Reactionless drive, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Repeatedly adding original research and talk in an article is against the policies of
WP:OR and
WP:DE.
Fæ (
talk) 05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Bring it on! Those that hold sway in the public, and insist on putting forward false concepts, will soon be brought down! Truth is physical, repeatable, and verifiable!
I hold myself, AND my adherants to the same standard. The "original research" includes the repeated experiments by over 20 others, that reported to me, results (both positive, and negative).
I understand that I need to overcome the fantasy of former understandings, and need to verify my claims that deviate from the norm. Stay tuned (but don't close your mind to possible new realities).''''
CowlishawDavid ( talk) 07:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted your addition [1] as have many others. It may or may not be genuinely notable, but there are a couple of obvious problems with it that until you fix, will definitely ensure it stays out: (a) no sources at all, not even bad ones (b) you've signed it. Only sign talk page posts (c) unencyclopaedic tone, e.g. "Tesla Vs Edison? Direct kinetic rocket coupling of the "inertial field" for propulsion (DC) results in a short hop to the planets (rockets), AC (Tesla) goes further (perhaps to the stars?" William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and one more thing: if you really want to make yourself look bad, then saying "Bring it on! ... Truth is physical, repeatable, and verifiable!" in bold is an excellent way to do it William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:23, 24 June 2011 (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. . - Rememberway ( talk) 10:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This comment on ANI in which you just threatened to possibly stick a pistol in the face of another editor is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia.
You are blocked from editing indefinitely. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Interesting! No I did NOT! Is hyperbole not allowed? I suggested that I was paranoid, as a result of years of antagonistic communications.
Who decides these things? How is our mutual understandings of our environment get resolved?
Apparently by reactionaries, NOT actionaries! CowlishawDavid ( talk) 07:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- "I am who I am, and you could drive up into my driveway and talk with me (but I might have a gun in your face, if you presented in such a negative, or challenging visiage)." [sic] That is a pretty obvious threat of violence, even if conditional. —Jeremy v^_^v Components: V S M 14:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
CowlishawDavid ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The result was repeated vandalism, harrang, harrassment, character assassination, name calling, and villification.
Apparently the wikipedia is a playground for bullies and blowhards.
While retreating from the torrent of abusive behavior, the GIT (Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster) did get placed back into the definition, but while a secondary edit was correct (rectified angular accelerations), that correct definition was removed, and what was left standing has totally mischaracterized the definition.
Gyroscopic precession (Eric Laithwaite's work) has nothing to do with the GIT class of mechanisms, other than as a hindrance to rapid direction changes (that can be compensated for by counter-rotating pairs).
Anyone can do a search for "Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster" and find correct examples, including a demonstration video sent to me by Britt Beaubian, then a high school student in Los Angeles. I particularly like Jean Louis Naudin of France's page on the subject, he was a very early contributor to my project.
Given that there are those that insist on malicious and false information editing, and ignorance appears to be encouraged, I would prefer NO inclusion of the GIT, to FALSE INFORMATION and slander. Are there any adults with authority in the wikipedia?
I will no longer participate in such a hostile and abusive environment.
Thank you
"David E. Cowlishaw" (search term enclosed in quotes).
CowlishawDavid (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I have to decline your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block; before making any further requests, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks — with WP:NOTTHEM, in particular — Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:34, 26 June 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.