Billyrubin2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm absolutely unaware of any offense. I have simply added references from a recently published article.
Decline reason:
Only one unblock request at a time - this request has already been addressed, and new request supercedes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 21 December 2010 (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.
Billyrubin2008 (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- It seems clear that you're a sockpuppet account. You arrived at an article in the middle of an edit war about a contentious aspect, added material about that aspect, and in your only two edits wrote it up, along with its references, perfectly. [1] Could you say what your IPs/accounts are? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm absolutely unaware of any offense. I'm a first time editor, so I may be unaware of this policy but I assure you my intentions are good. I attempted an edit of a single page prior to registering for an account--my edit was removed because I failed to include a reference. So, I decided to sign up for an account, billyrubin 2008, researched how to add citations and then I proceeded to continue my editing, providing valid citations. Please unblock me so I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm a healthcare provider interested in education. Thank you. Billyrubin2008 (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Are you 72.24.114.194 (talk · contribs)? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am. I just verified my account via email which should verify that. I apologize for not reading up on this before attempting to edit. Billyrubin2008 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. Another admin may decide to unblock you, but I won't, because it seems unlikely that a new editor would head straight for the same contentious point that has been argued on this article for the last few weeks. I'll post below the block template so you can use the links to request an unblock. For any admin looking at this, I'm about to go offline, so please proceed as you see fit. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alright, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning however. The article that I'm referencing topped Medscape's list of most viewed articles of 2010, which piqued my interest. I simply wanted to add such obviously interesting information to make it readily available to others. Please reconsider if the block is not removed in the near future. Thank you. Billyrubin2008 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Billyrubin2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I failed to create an account before attempting an edit. That edit was removed because I failed to cite it--I did not know how. So, I researched it, signed up for an account and tried to repost and continue editing. I was flagged for creating multiple accounts. It was an innocent mistake. I had no idea this article was being so hotly debated but the evidence I provided still stands. Billyrubin2008 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Accept reason:
You have been unblocked by SlimVirgin, and I assume that not editing here to indicate the fact was an error, so I am doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- You added something to an article, it was removed. You then created an account and added it again - this is considered to be textbook WP:SOCK activity. The only way that I would be willing to unblock at this point is if you agree to stay away from that article for a minimum of 1 month. This would give you time to build your editing skills, learn Wikipedia policies such as WP:EL and WP:RS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- The material and source Billyrubin2008 added (E. Ernst's "Deaths After Chiropractic: A Review of Published Case") [2] [3] [4] [5] has been the subject of a dispute on that page for several weeks. It was added by QuackGuru on Nov 27, and reverted by Jdwolff. Restored by QuackGuru on December 5; reverted by Jdwolff; restored, reverted. Discussion about it here on talk.
- Billyrubin is saying he just happened to arrive at that article with his first edits, and just happened to think of this material as the first thing to add. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Bwilkins, thank you for your consideration. I accept your terms--I have no interest in debating the topic with any other editors, I simply wanted to add what I thought was valid and interesting information. SlimVirgin, I understand that the details of my arrival seem questionable to you but I've given you the facts. The article in question was sent to me (and countless other medical professionals) via Medscape along with other "top reads" of the year--it's no surprise that others are referencing the same article. In my defense, you will see that I did not edit or remove anything that was posted by anyone else but rather I tried to add what I wanted to say as a counterpoint. In summary, I will gladly take some time to research Wikipedia policy before contributing anything else. Thank you.Billyrubin2008 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Billy, thank you for the explanation. I'm willing to assume good faith here and unblock you. Please understand that this appears to be a contentious point, so if you do return to the article at a later date it would be appreciated if you'd discuss the issue on the talk page before restoring that material. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your faith. It's encouraging to me as a potential (and obviously novice) editor. To tell you the truth, I recently read the talk page on that article (another Wikipedia feature I previously knew nothing about) and was honestly surprised at the level and quality of debate. It seems that this article is already in capable hands; I don't believe I'll be contributing at all to this piece in the future. Happy Holidays.