JohnPetersen2570

February 2013

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).

JohnPetersen2570 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not been entering into editing wars. It is McGeddon and acolytes of his who have systematically censured my contributions. Have I editing THEIR contributions? They are the ones attacking me. I never attacked them. I just mentioned a successful book about Oracle and clearly McGeddon & co are Oracle employees who try to censure all opinions or information that Oracle does not like. If Wikipedia wants to turn into an extension of Oracle's marketing machine, then it is losing all credibility JohnPetersen2570 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2013 (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.

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Oracle Corporation because it appeared to be promotional. 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. McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Oracle Corporation. 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. McGeddon (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oracle Corporation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. You have been edit warring, continuing even after it had been explained to you that doing so was unacceptable. That in itself would have justified a block, but in addition to that, you have been persistently attempting to use Wikipedia to promote a point of view, and to campaign against a business, and it has been explained to you that doing that was unacceptable, too. Furthermore, you have been making negative or critical claims about living persons without providing any reliable sources, effectively sourcing it to innuendo. That is completely unacceptable. You might have been blocked for a limited period were it not for the fact that carrying on this campaign is clearly the only purpose you have in editing Wikipedia, so there is no reason to suppose that allowing you to continue to edit would help the project in any way. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)