PigeonPiece
Welcome!
Hello, PigeonPiece, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Conflict of interest - noticeboard edit
Hello - I have started a section about you on the Conflict of interest noticeboard. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest edit
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Oxford Round Table, 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:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- 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.
An editor has expressed a concern on User talk:Athaenara#COI Noticeboard re Oxford Round Table that you may be employed by the organisation which is the subject of the article. — Athaenara ✉ 19:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
3RR violation edit
I have reported your violation of the 3-revert rule at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. Since you have a WP:COI, it is imperative that you adhere to consensus. You cannot simply ignore the results of an RfC you initiated, four times at this point. If you want to make revisions to the article, please take them to the talk page first. Academic38 (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Though the reviewing admin decided it was technically not a violation, I remind you that the rule is also not to be violated in its intention--it forbids repeated reversions no matter how the timing goes. See WP:3RR, as follows
- "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. ... Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks..... Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances." DGG (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Though the reviewing admin decided it was technically not a violation, I remind you that the rule is also not to be violated in its intention--it forbids repeated reversions no matter how the timing goes. See WP:3RR, as follows
You seem to have a slow-motion edit war going on with Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). Even if you had left a meaningful edit summary, at this point, I would strongly urge you to discuss and reach consensus before reverting. Toddst1 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008 edit
September 2008 edit
PigeonPiece (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not understand why I have been blocked from the Oxford round Table page and Academic38 or Nomoskadicity have not. We differ in opinion about the importance of information on the page and they have reverted my information as well, which means they should be blocked as well. They are removing third party sources and no one is addressing that issue. Please explain with your own specific words, why I have been blocked and when the block will be lifted so individuals do not keep polluting this page.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for using multiple accounts to avoid the consequences of your actions, which is against the rules. Your request does not address the reason for your block. The block for edit-warring was only for a week, and would have expired long ago; it's the indefinite block for sockpuppetry that is currently active. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:57, 6 October 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.
Okay, I am not the other individual that they are accusing me of being. I have no idea who that this. These individual Academic and Nomostacitity have been harassing me and the Oxford Round Table. They are the ones that have a defaming blog regarding the Oxford Round Table and I suspect they have the same person or are conspiring, yet I kept getting blocked. But there friends, one whom I believe is Todd1 or whatever (the person that blocked me) still allows them to edit the page. Why have not they been blocked?PigeonPiece (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
PigeonPiece (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not who participating with anyone. However Academic38 has defamed and posted on the controversial blog regarding the Oxford Round Table and the individual is still being allowed to post. I believe these individuals are working with administrators to continue defaming Oxford Round Table. My information is neutral and I continued to be outvoted and/or blocked.PigeonPiece (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is clear from this edit you made and this edit made by the account Astutescholar that the two accounts are being controlled by the same person. There is no other way that two people who don't know each other would pen essentially the exact same text. Additionally, it is clear that the Astutescholar account was created during the dispute you were having, jumped immediately into the article, and made an edit identical to one you had made earlier. This cannot be explained any other way, except to say that the two of you are the same person, which is against the rules. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 10 October 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.
PigeonPiece (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not that individual. I challenge any one to check my IP address and check the other individuals' address. Also, if administrators sincerely followed the rule of not working with someone to edit a page, Academic38 and Nomodascity (whatever) would be blocked. However because they are working with the administrators, they are exempt from following the rules. You can find the information posted on the Round Table website that anyone has access to. PigeonPiece (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Agree with evaluation by the other reviewing admins, and by Jayron32, below. — Cirt (talk) 17:16, 16 October 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.
- For any admin that responds to the above request, there is relevent information at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Astutescholar. The IP addresses were checked, as the user above requested, and a checkuser determined that it was possible the two had related IP addresses (he did not rule it out). In such cases, the duck test is helpful. Please observe these edits: this edit made by the account Astutescholar and this edit made by Pigeonpiece. I am at a loss to explain how two different people could independantly, and without knowledge of each other, sit at seperate computers and type the exact same thing for several paragraphs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
PigeonPiece (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Since I know that I do not have the same IP address as the other individual, that offered information about administrators ability to even check IP address, which they obviously cannot. Since I have no dealing with Astutescholar and we certainly do not have the same IP address, Wikipedia has proven that it has NO ability to in good faith check IP addresses. You have certainly lost all credibility on resolving issues. I am again requesting that this block be removed because your organization has administrators who are liars and working with people who defame others via this shameless, bogus means.
Decline reason:
All this, and then you create User:Lonestar1234 to do exactly what you're claiming you haven't done. Bye. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:47, 23 October 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.
PigeonPiece (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Four unblock requests is more than enough. I have protected this talk page from further edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)