Orientalsoul
Welcome edit
|
June 2012 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to International Technological University. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to International Technological University. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to International Technological University, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at International Technological University, you may be blocked from editing. jfeise (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The article International Technological University is temporarily protected against changes, except by administrators, due to war-like edits that appear to be aimed at making the article into a promotional brochure for the school. You may wish to discuss the article and the reasons for your edits on the article talk page at Talk:International Technological University. --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make a case for something, that's fine, but you really need to stop with the personal attacks. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Obviously the same user who is using IP 24.6.166.5. jfeise (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ituhubert. Thank you.
Orientalsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
my reason for requesting to be unblocked is because I only have and use only this one account. I have been accused by a pretty biased poster of sock puppetry, using wiki tools I am unfamiliar with in order to censor my account, which is unfair. I have never used another account to log in -much less edit materials. Please do what u folks do to investigate, then unblock my account, thank you
Decline reason:
To be unblocked you'll need to address the valid concerns below and here, and not accuse the reporter of being "a pretty biased poster" and of censorship. You may well be innocent of the charge, but we need to see a collegial, not confrontational, approach, in order to determine the facts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 11 July 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.
- I'm not sure that I would have gone so far as to mark this as "confirmed," however your account is on the same IP address as a number of other accounts - additionally, your edits focus on the same article as several of those accounts. Can you explain this? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:48, 11 July
I may choose to have coffee and hop on the net with others who also contribute to wiki…it certainly does not mean we are the same people. My account has been blocked because I am supposedly writing from two or more accounts, that is the specific accusation. Yet I am not, nor have I ever operated here as any ID other than the one I am writing from now. I have read some of the entries of ituhubert (the ID I am accused of also operating) I think it is quite obvious on even a cursory glance that we have a completely different tone & style. please take a quick look yourself. I can't see how any reader could mistake us for the same person. Orientalsoul (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Orientalsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have responded to this block with the fact that I have never operated any other ID other than the one I have currently signed into. I have read a bit more of this "sockpuppetry" accusation, where one gets blocked if two or more accounts are coming from the same IP, most notably in the explanation, from schools that use the same IP address when sending out. The fix that is recommended, is to create a new account from an unblocked IP. I will follow this written advice if I do not hear from you administrator folks in another day or two. However, I would like to point out the counter-productive nature of blocking an editor and accusing him/her of operating two or more accounts - when in this case, factually, I know that to be false - only to force the editor to ironically do exactly what the block is meant to prevent. Namely, operating more than one ID. Silly procedural system, don't you think. So I will request once again that you admin folks take note of this reasoning, and please unblock this ID. Otherwise, as I have said, your actions will, in essence, be forcing me to do exactly what the block is meant to prevent. Whereas I had not committed this offense by my own will, your collective administrative actions or inaction's, presently force me to do what I have been inaccurately accused of doing in the first place. Think it over, but please act fast. This is my last request on the subject. If this ID stays blocked, next, I will turn up as another user ID. Probably something with the word "Spring" in it, just so that you know... Thanks again for your consideration.
Decline reason:
No one will unblock an account that is promising to break the rules. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 13 July 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.
- Whether or not this account is a sockpuppet, it clearly exists for the sole purpose of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, and it should remain blocked for that reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, even though I made the sockpuppet report, I'm less concerned about the account being used for promotional reasons and more concerned about the account attacking other editors on one talk page. If it wasn't for the attacks, I probably would have let it go. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Besides the personal attacks by this account (targeting me, even though I didn't edit the particular article much), there also seems to be a conflict of interest. The related account ituhubert uses "we" and "our university" regularly on the talk page of the only article the account edits, indicating a role account. And of course, coordinating edits between acquaintances or coworkers, which Orientalsoul admitted to above, also falls under the sockpuppetry rules. So, there seem to be a bunch of violations of Wikipedia rules by this and related accounts. jfeise (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)