Ioanna.hearts.you

May 2015

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Royal Dutch Shell. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  —SMALLJIM  20:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Royal Dutch Shell, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  —SMALLJIM  20:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want the oil spill mentioned, please mention it neutrally (as described above) rather than adding text encouraging readers to stop the oil spill; we're supposed to just list facts rather than trying to convince readers of one thing or another. Repeating the same text several times also isn't helpful. ekips39 (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing. I'm sure you mean well, but there are limits.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   —SMALLJIM  21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ioanna.hearts.you (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Fine, I will stop. But Wikipedia should really stop covering up information about the oil spill and preventing the editing of the page of the company responsible. It really suggests terrible things about Wikipedia. Ioanna.hearts.you (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As far as I can see the only editor who has been prevented from editing the page is you, after you posted the same text eleven times on the page. The article is not protected and anyone can edit it, within Wikipedia policy and conditions. You do not appear to have mentioned the oil spill, which you could have, except in edit summaries. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:34, 14 May 2015 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ioanna.hearts.you (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I had written: I totally would (it's a good idea and a nice thought) but, as I mentioned, it's not possible to do so because of the block placed on editing the page by Wikipedia. Therefore, the closest we can get to actually getting this issue noticed is to go to the page of the parent company. Of course, that is not the place to mention the irresponsibility of the daughter company, because it is largely irrelevant due to the independence of the daughter company and the fact that the oil spill was the responsibility of the daughter company. If the daughter company's page is made editable again, then edits to the parent company's page will not longer occur and information about the oil spill will be added in a neutral and factually supported fashion onto the daughter company's page (seriously, I promise references). As long as this is not possible, there is nothing else for us to do.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for your own conduct, which you do not in the least address. And given that past conduct, I seriously doubt you'd suddenly start to write neutral, well-referenced content if unblocked. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your publicity campaign. Huon (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2015 (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've left some advice on my talk page (here) in response to an identical comment. I suggest you keep it in mind if you want to be unblocked. ekips39 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What is your relationship to Papajohny1324 and Noxz123? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know who those people/users are and they don't have any pages that I can access so I can't help you :/ Ioanna.hearts.you (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. They have posted the exactly identical posts that you have. Would you like to give a convincing explanation of that? Telling us that they just happened to find the page will NOT be convincing. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I guess they just happened to find the page. Or maybe it just so happens - I know it seems ludicrous - that more than one person cares about saving the Earth we live on? I mean, it's clear that Wikipedia prefers protecting big businesses to anybody else who could be affected (right, Wikipedia knows nothing about the oilspill - sorry, I forgot!) but clearly Noxz123 and Papajohny1324 (SHOUT OUTS TO THEM FOR BEING AWESOME) clearly do. Now, unless you believe that on the whole planet, where seven billion people live (although admittedly about 3 million have access to internet), I am the only one who cares enough to bother Wikipedia about climate change, then this is a perfectly convincing explanation of people posting that text. Or maybe they just happened to find the page, I don't know. Kisses! Ioanna.hearts.you (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Just finding the page is plausible; and then entering, word-for-word, the comment which you have repeatedly posted?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dude, ever heard of copy-paste? Ioanna.hearts.you (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously. You are suggesting, are you, that two editors with whom you have no connection both, individually but more or less simultaneously, found the page by chance and then both chose your comment to copy-paste? Come on!! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, your interrogation method totally got me. You broke me, so I have to confess that you have unearthed the hacktivist group Anonymous_(group)... It is us and your brave actions and strong, stern, and manly intimidation has forced me to reveal our secret. You may consider this an official statement that, a long time ago, the three of us solemnly swore that we were up to no good, and have since then prowled the internet under the guise of Guy Fawkes. But you have discovered us because we were not careful enough when posting disruptive edits on Wikipedia. You, Anthony Bradbury, may now be officially knighted in the name of all that is censorship and banning freedom of speech when it happens against big corporations (which is totally hilarious because of your last name). I promise, for my part, to from now on totally respect all Wikipedia rules and cooperate in whatever way I can with your investigation. Kisses! Ioanna.hearts.you (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)