Gowlo
|
March 2010 edit
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Gowlo, you will be blocked from editing. Goodvac (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Gowlo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, Just requesting a reversing of the decision to block my account indefinitely for reasons of "vandalism". I am only new to the world of editing and working with Wikipedia and whilst, i am sure, ignorance is a poor defense, i was not actually aware that deleting certain pieces of information was classed as "vandalism". My mistake, and i apologise. It wont happen again. I have, since being blocked, checked on the process for reporting and disputing information posted on Wikipedia and from now on i will be using the correct procedure to do so. There are certain statements of accusatory opinion currently listed on the page for "Edge Church" which have been posted by a journalist from an Australian newspaper outlet. This journalist has used Wikipedia to propagate unfounded claims and then cross-referenced the claims by linking them to their online news report. This link doesn't confirm their accusations or give any factual weight to their claims, it simply restates the accusations from their website. There have been a number of attempts to address this situation which are still under investigation and the information that is currently on Wikipedia is both defamatory and incorrect. If you could please advise me of what my next course of action might be to address this i would be very grateful. Regards Gowlo
Decline reason:
This is actually the second time you were blocked for doing the same thing—the first being 92.26.121.6 (talk · contribs) (for the same edits). You then proceeded to evade the original block and continue making the same edits using this account. If unblocked, do you have any plans for editing elsewhere on the encyclopedia, or is the article in question your only reason for editing? --slakr\ talk / 03:28, 9 March 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.
- Indeed, ignorance is no excuse - and just to be sure, I'm including a whole whack of vital policies at the top of this page. Let us know when you've had a good look over them, please. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Just requesting a reversing of the decision to block my account indefinitely for reasons of "vandalism". I am only new to the world of editing and working with Wikipedia and whilst, i am sure, ignorance is a poor defense, i was not actually aware that deleting certain pieces of information was classed as "vandalism". My mistake, and i apologise. It wont happen again. I have, since being blocked, checked on the process for reporting and disputing information posted on Wikipedia and from now on i will be using the correct procedure to do so.
There are certain statements of accusatory opinion currently listed on the page for "Edge Church" which have been posted by a journalist from an Australian newspaper outlet. This journalist has used Wikipedia to propagate unfounded claims and then cross-referenced the claims by linking them to their online news report. This link doesn't confirm their accusations or give any factual weight to their claims, it simply restates the accusations from their website.
There have been a number of attempts to address this situation which are still under investigation and the information that is currently on Wikipedia is both defamatory and incorrect.
If you could please advise me of what my next course of action might be to address this i would be very grateful.
Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:02:07 +0000
(Copy of e-mail to me Ronhjones (Talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
- This sounds to me that your editing is intending to continue to continue in the same vein if unblocked. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Gowlo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your response, please be assured that I have no intention of deleting information from this site in the future and am genuine in my previous message to you. You will notice that the 2 times that i attempted to edit the page were both within a few minutes of eachother as when i noticed that the information had reappeared on the site i thought i may have not saved the changes and went back again. At that time i hadn't seen the original warning and it was only after i had been indefinitely blocked that i logged into my page and found the message. There are a number of COI issues with the article that we are discussing and i am more than happy to pursue proper forms of challenging these things as laid out in the terms and procedures outlined by Wikipedia. I am a rational human being and intend conducting myself properly in the future. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis for information and resource and i am totally committed to it remaining an accurate and useful worldwide portal, which is why i wont be repeating my previous actions. Look forward to hearing from you soon. Gowlo
Decline reason:
You won't be unblocked unless you agree to stop creating inappropriate articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:52, 11 March 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.
{{unblock|1=I am not sure of the reason for you asking me to stop creating "inappropriate articles" as i haven't actually created any articles on Wikipedia? I have already said on more than 1 occasion in response to my block that i have no intention of repeating this situation. Not sure what you want? I agree to conduct myself in the future within the guidelines of use of Wikipedia and my previous indiscretion was due to my lack of understanding and not a blatant disregard for the rules governing Wikipedia. Could you please consider removing the block on my account? Thanks, Gowlo}}
You say there are some COI issues with the Article Edge Church. I would add that you also seem to have a conflict of interest yourself. Please realise that there are plenty of vandal fighters around the world trying their best to keep Wikipedia in good shape - that means that any deletion of text gets highlighted, and when there are supporting references as well, then it becomes a priority to revert. If others agree that the block should be lifted, then I'm happy to go along with that. Note, if that happens then please be sure to discuss any content removal on the Article's talk page, and when you have agreement to delete material - always flag up the discussion in the edit summary so that a fast revert and warning does not occur again. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- As Ronhjones says, discuss this on the talk page. I am unblocking you with his agreement, but please be aware that any re-occurrence of the behaviour which led to the block will cause the block to be re-instated. Find reliable, independent sources which show that the sources given are incorrect - and provide these on the article's talk page. Let a discussion occur, and if consensus is in favour of the changes, then let another editor do it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)