Aricalex

Calvin A. Grant

Removal of a conflict of interest tag, especially when you are one of those with the conflict of interest, is not acceptable. Corvus cornix_talk 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Calvin A. Grant, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Calvin A. Grant. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Calvin A. Grant. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (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).

Aricalex (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not sure who was posting the edits. Everything posted on the page is supported by well respected independent articles from respected sources in the field, namely american society of retinal specialists, association of vision research, etc. The information has been provided in a format that will respectfully updated given the opportunity. There are no such scokpuppets, etc.

Decline reason:

Since you have yet acknowledge wholly unhelpful and misleading edits of vandalism like this one there is no reason to believe you will stop trying to make them. — Gwen Gale (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2008 (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).

Aricalex (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe that my request has not been answered fully. I took off edits that were nonsense. There was never anything malicious. The tags that were placed on the page should be considered inflammatory. Removing something that is false should not be considered vandalism. There are references and they will continue to grow as the editing process continues. — Aricalex (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (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.