Klautmedia
Welcome!
Hello, Klautmedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Klautmedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am aware of the childish and petty behaviour of some of the Wikipedia community in relation to my client. The author has expressed his frustration to us and stated that he no longer wishes to participate in Wikipedia.
The fact remains that we are not the person that you claim us to be, and that the contributions are well within your rules. Our position is that there are many contributions to Wikipedia and references that several editors have taken it upon themselves to remove as some sort of spiteful retribution. The author has asked us to reference where necessary and improve the appearance of the pages where spiteful pruning has taken place.
The author that we represent is beyond reproach, has conducted a significant amount of recognised research, we have published his book, and that he has been generous to provide it free of copyright on this site. If you have any problems with the impartiality, then you should buy a copy of our book and note the strength of the research.
Please let this be the end of this matter. Klautmedia (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
you have failed to address the reason for block. Please note that editing on behalf of another person is not allowed here, and neither is the sharing of accounts; I note the use of the word "we" in your request.
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.
Klautmedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've read your review and clearly it isn't a decision that would hold up in any legal proceeding.
Let's look at what the substance of this blocking is. You claim that I am someone, who clearly I am not. Secondly, it is immaterial whether I know the person subject to the original block. Thirdly, the editing fixes citations that have been replaced or clearly are needed. Finally, it makes sense that a person who has contributed so extensively to a particular subject matter and provided original material that can exclusively be found in a published resource have that material be attributed to that author.
As much as this website is a private website, its goals are democratic and its processes should be transparent. Spurious blocking by anonymous editors and administrators by unfounded claims will only attract the wrong type of publicity.
The author joined this website voluntarily to share his research and promote discussion. Instead, the behaviour of your editors and administrators has scared him (and most likely others) away. He does not wish to have anything to do with this site due to your behaviour but acknowledges that there is a lot of material on this site that should be referenced.
If you look back at how this silly blocking episode started, it was the result of one of your editors deleting original photos donated by the author because their source was challenged. As soon as the author provided the source (being his book) you attacked him for lack of impartiality and promoting his book. Effectively, he created several pages from scratch and then referenced them once his original material was published. Your editors have effectively kept all his original material but removed any mention of the source of that original material. That is appalling any way you look at it.
Take a long hard look at yourselves and realise how pointless this blocking exercise is. It only makes the administration of this site look bad.--Klautmedia (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
it is immaterial whether I know the person subject to the original block -- no, it isn't. Editing on behalf of another person is not allowed here, and neither is the sharing of accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:17, 31 August 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.