Bryanturnerhca
I was not even given the opportunity to discuss anything! I thought there was a process!!! This is stupid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8083:1AF0:384D:1DD4:5CEE:BF5F (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
edit
Hello, I'm Meretechnicality. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Uruguay have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Meretechnicality (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Hillsborough Christian Academy
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Hillsborough Christian Academy, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
edit
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a habit of saying what is true and accurate. I don't plan on changing that.
We are not saying that you should censor yourself; Wikipedia is not censored. However, attacks against other editors will NOT be tolerated. Meretechnicality (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, I will say whatever I want to. The article was pulled down for a STUPID reason by a STUPID editor. I have discouraged kids now.
This was not an attempt to discourage students. But content on Wikipedia must be worthy of an article. The editor who marked the article for deletion was following this guideline, and meant no malice. Meretechnicality (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Your so called editor is not qualified to decided what is notable or not. Our school produces notable moments in children's lives every day. The spirit of Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia - worthy of the human history that it carries. No one - not you or your editor - decides what is notable in these children's lives. I assert my original assumption - Stupidity. Plain and simple.
I'm not attempting to undermine your school. But there are several problems with the article. 1, the school may not be notable enough to warrant its own article. You may want to simply edit another page to warrant this. 2, since you are directly involved with the school (from what I can gather, you're a teacher there), you are not allowed to write the article per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, because you may (even unintentionally) break the rule on neutrality. 3, one of the CSD given was that it vaguely advertised the school. This is very much against policy.
I would also like to remind you to be civil to other editors. If you continue to be rude or attack other editors, it may result in you being blocked, either temporarily or indefinitely. I know that this may seem unfair, but we're not trying to be mean. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and that means both noteworthy articles and a community of editors to support it. So please,try not to lose your cool. If you're still confused on why your article was deleted, I'd recommend reading the links above. Have a good evening, and please give your students my best regards. Meretechnicality (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have objected to the deletion. It was not a biased article. It was factual - as referenced. Again - this is truly rampant stupidity. I am not a teacher at HCA - I am the school principal - supporting a project that they began, and intended on finishing. I'd recommend that you get a sense of what a real encyclopedia is. In fact - all of history is biased at some point, normally by the winning side. There are so many different ways to tell the story of history, and you are failing miserably. If anything, I say you should be banned! The whole lot of you! RESTORE OUR PAGE!
I can only see what the logs tell me, and it says that your article was nominated for speedy deletion because of notability issues (CSD A7) and that it seemed to vaguely advertise the school. (CSD G11). I don't know if this wasn't the case, because the page has been deleted, along with its revision history. I do have a sense of what a real encyclopedia is, and those do not include subjects that are not noteworthy. If you had tried to submit your school to someplace such as Britannica, then that would have been rejected there as well. Again, I'm not attempting to attack your school. But I will say that if you are the principal of this school, then you are definitely not supposed to write this article. No one that is associated with the school should, including the students. And while history can be biased, there is no reason that we shouldn't make attempts to keep bias out of articles.
And again, please attempt to keep discussion civil. If you are not able to do this, then you can, and will, be banned from editing Wikipedia. Consider this your final warning. Please, before you respond to this post, I ask you to read the guidelines on credible claims of significance. I'd also like to remind you to assume good faith. I am not trying to hurt you or your students, but your school may not meet the notability threshold. Meretechnicality (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Back at ya! Britannica does not claim to be a living encyclopedia. It is page limited - and they drastically edit articles. I am very familiar with how the process of editing and producing a body of work takes place. I do not need to be educated on the intricacies. What you need to understand is your editors were as biased as you claim I was in the removing of the article. Notability, at its very essence, is a qualitative feature that is decided upon through emotional tendencies. Thus- anything you believe is notable was decided to be so through bias.
I further assert that you failed to even see the article, and are arguing with no fact. The article was written without catch phrases. Everything in the article was pure fact, which could be backed up by a NUMBER of PRIMARY sources. Additionally, I was not the author, but students - who believe that their school is NOTABLE - wrote the article. I simply typed their final edited paragraphs.
I sit upon my claim that you and your so called "editors" have no idea what you are doing - and are failing to secure history for posterity. RESTORE MY KIDS ARTICLE!
You're right that I haven't seen the page. I came here after the page was deleted, and as such, cannot see it. I am going off of the notice about deletion above. But an administrator read and deleted your page, meaning that they agreed that there wasn't notability. And that is objective when you're here; it doesn't matter if the students believe the school is noteworthy, but it does matter if the subject doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Your students are also subject to the neutrality guideline, and in keeping with that, the article should not be written by them. I would also like to ask if there were secondary sources on the article. Both primary and secondary sources have to be present to establish notability. (Multiple sources from the same author are considered to be one source when considering notability.) The article may have been pure fact, but whether it was or not is irrelevant to its notability.
I'm not sure we're getting anywhere with this. Would you like me to ask for dispute resolution to help with this? Meretechnicality (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that we are getting nowhere with this. I would say that dispute resolution is in order - however, I don't believe that you have a resource that would be unbiased at this point. So it might be a fruitless excercise in running a DICTATORSHIP! There are plenty of Primary Sources and Secondary Sources available. As to notability - you are getting nowhere - you don't understand the term at its core. You and the rest of the idiot editors you have trolling human history. My students can write whatever articles they want about this school. They are legitimate - and I would post every last one of them just to annoy your little minions.
I'll call for dispute resolution. but I need you to read the following:
You have a dispute with another editor and need help resolving it.
You are willing to discuss the issues in a calm and civil manner.
You are open to the idea of compromising with the other editors to resolve the dispute.
I'll call the resolution team. Please also try to be more civil; several of your comments have been breaches of the content policy and terms of use, and there may be action taken on those regardless of the outcome of a dispute. Meretechnicality (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC) (edited)
I am going to call for resolution now. Please conduct yourself or you risk action against your account and ability to edit Wikipedia. Meretechnicality (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I called for resolution. Please go to the page linked below and summarize your view of what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meretechnicality (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
In addition to this, I believe that your conduct and behavior towards other editors warrants a look from the Admin Noticeboard. I'm sorry to do this, but I did warn you. Meretechnicality (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
edit
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Meretechnicality (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am asking for dispute resolution help. I regularly utilize Wikipedia for educational purposes as a teacher and school administrator. Meretechnicality and the associate deleted my students work- making it a sore subject. I am disappointed in the way these folks handled discourse. I had logical responses for the discussion, and became banned for defending my students! This is outrageous, and goes to prove what I said! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8083:1AF0:384D:1DD4:5CEE:BF5F (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bryanturnerhca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Due Process! I was never asked my side of the story. I am an educator trying to teach students.
Decline reason:
So you appeared here, vandalized, created a page that was eligible for deletion, instead of arguing why your page should be undeleted you started attacking the nominating user. Even now that you're blocked, you're still refusing to heed our policies. I'm afraid I'm unable to unblock you today. Max Semenik (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2017 (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.
I don't believe you were banned because of the dispute or the ANI. The ban reason says vandalism, and looking at the logs, that doesn't seem wrong. In fact, earlier today, I had to undo one of your edits that didn't trip the filter, because there isn't a rogue human training facility in Uruguay training people to fight aliens, that travel at mach 8 and can launch at a moment's notice. (Which is actually pretty creative. Maybe you could write a book or something. I'm not being sarcastic here, I genuinely mean that.) Meretechnicality (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is part of my training for students! I teach them that articles can be changed at will - which is why not to use Wikipedia for research sources. Instead, use Wikipedia for a jumping point, and check the references from the author(s). So you are telling me that my teaching style is inappropriate? It tends to make the point for my students!
- Yes, because that damages the encyclopedia. You could have instead made an example article on your Sandbox page and "vandalized" that. It would make the point, perhaps less effectively, but it also wouldn't lead to your being banned from editing Wikipedia. Meretechnicality (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again - that is stupid. The articles make their way back to normal. There is never damage done!
- Look, Bryan, I don't want to argue with you anymore. The damage is done, you didn't get unblocked, nothing else is going to happen. I'm sorry that everything turned out this way, and I hope that you have a wonderful evening. Meretechnicality (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again - that is stupid. The articles make their way back to normal. There is never damage done!
- Yes, because that damages the encyclopedia. You could have instead made an example article on your Sandbox page and "vandalized" that. It would make the point, perhaps less effectively, but it also wouldn't lead to your being banned from editing Wikipedia. Meretechnicality (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bryanturnerhca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I assumed I was blocked for the conflict with another user, never because of editing a page for my students. That was never mentioned. I am allowed my opinion, and if the block is on the editing, fine. Lesson learned. But the original Hillsborough Christian Academy page should not have been removed, as mentioned above. I disagree, and never had ANYONE ask questions to me, my side of the story, nor was I ever warned that I had "vandalized" pages. I respectfully request the block to be removed
Decline reason:
You did not need to be warned that you had vandalized pages, you knew perfectly well you had - you have even admitted it was done deliberately. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2017 (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.
Bryanturnerhca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please double check the log- I was not told about vandalism until after I was blocked. I have reviewed your block page, and I should have been warned. "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than administrators only." This is a first encounter, and you are failing to follow your own rules. The object of Wikipedia is an open living encyclopedia. How many people would think that editing an article is vandalism without being told? Again, I respectfully request my account be reinstated.
Decline reason:
I double checked the log. As mentioned below, you were indeed warned about your vandalism. You were deliberately damaging an article and relying on other people to clean up your mess. It beggers belief to imagine that this is something you need to be told is a bad idea. Yamla (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2017 (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.
- I did warn you, actually, after reverting your Uruguay edit. Look at the top of the page. Meretechnicality (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- That did not say anything about vandalism. It said you reverted something I edited. I thought it was a user updating Wikipedia. You did not say who you were or what it was about - and before that, I had never even seen this page! User:Bryanturnerhca
- And as far as the Hillsborough Christian Academy article - the historical significance exists in Hillsborough, as this was a school founded well over 200 years ago (see historical marker) and reestablished in the early 2000s after it went out of existence.
- That was actually a "notice," not technically a warning. But you did say, regarding your vandalism (which is what I called it) "That is part of my training for students! I teach them that articles can be changed at will - which is why not to use Wikipedia for research sources." So...you were aware that it was vandalism, and you have no excuse for that. Meretechnicality (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- You stated "Hello, I'm Meretechnicality. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Uruguay have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Meretechnicality (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)" which has no reference to vandalism. As to my discussion with you, I said I used opportunities such as this to teach students. I did say that. I did not say I vandalized anything. I did not know this was considered vandalism until I was blocked. Had I known- I would have done something different. Students need to learn that your resource CAN NOT be utilized as research material. Ask ANY college professor if they accept Wikipedia as a source. The answer is no - and for this reason. I am merely educating my students. Not attempting to overthrow your enormous dictatorship held here, which I originally thought was an open source encyclopedia.
- That was actually a "notice," not technically a warning. But you did say, regarding your vandalism (which is what I called it) "That is part of my training for students! I teach them that articles can be changed at will - which is why not to use Wikipedia for research sources." So...you were aware that it was vandalism, and you have no excuse for that. Meretechnicality (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- The first reference to vandalism appeared when you stated "I don't believe you were banned because of the dispute or the ANI. The ban reason says vandalism, and looking at the logs, that doesn't seem wrong. In fact, earlier today, I had to undo one of your edits that didn't trip the filter, because there isn't a rogue human training facility in Uruguay training people to fight aliens, that travel at mach 8 and can launch at a moment's notice. (Which is actually pretty creative. Maybe you could write a book or something. I'm not being sarcastic here, I genuinely mean that.) Meretechnicality (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)" which is after the block notification. I even stated I was disagreeing with the block based on our discussion earlier.
So what would you have called your edit to Uruguay, then? Meretechnicality (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would have called it an edit. I would have called it an educational opportunity for my students. I would have called it so many things other than vandalism.
- You edited Wikipedia, with the intention of damaging it. You wanted to show this to your students, to teach them that people can do that. Which you clearly knew was a bad thing. WP:VANDAL says that "Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism." I would consider your edit to be vandalism based on this policy.
- And Wikipedia is open source, but we do need to make sure that content added is accurate. Your Uruguay edit is not accurate. We only close it to people that change it for the worse. And you did.
I was not aware that I was doing something inappropriate. It never stated that anywhere that I saw. I was not under the impression that I was damaging Wikipedia - which as it stands, is not damaged. What I did was educate students. Clearly we still have a difference of opinion. What ever happened to dispute resolution - which I never was able to be involved in?
Bryanturnerhca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In response to the previous admin, I was not told that I was vandalizing until after I was already blocked. The log from the top of the page states " Hello, I'm Meretechnicality. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Uruguay have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Meretechnicality (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)" This is not telling me I vandalized something. Again, it was after the initial block. It also states in the block requirements, that a block can be lifted if the user will use it the way instructed. I have been told that it is vandalism now, which I take seriously and it will not happen again. This whole mess is stupid! I respectfully request my account to be reinstated.
Decline reason:
Having reviewed your editing history and the comments made on this page, it is abundantly clear that you do not understand how Wikipedia operates, and that you are not here to productively contribute to the building of an encyclopaedia. Until you are able to demonstrate (not indignantly insist) that you understand Wikipedia's policies, and indicate that you have something of value to add to the site, there seems to be no benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking your account. Yunshui 雲水 11:33, 19 January 2017 (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.
- The dispute resolution was in regards to whether the deleted article should be undeleted. However, you were banned for vandalism before Dispute Resolution could take a look.
- If you were truly unaware that your edits were considered to be vandalism, then I'm sorry. I'd recommend you go read WP:VANDAL before taking any other actions, and possibly the entire rest of the guidelines and policies we have here as well. But presenting falsities as facts should seem inherently wrong to anyone, especially a teacher. Meretechnicality (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- To the next reviewing admin, this appears to be a case of WP:IDHT. This unblock request does at least admit to vandalism, but the comment immediately above still refuses to accept that vandalism is damage ("I was not under the impression that I was damaging Wikipedia - which as it stands, is not damaged"). If you decline the unblock, you will be the fourth admin to do so. --Yamla (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Is that what you want? You want me to admit that I damaged something? How can I have damaged something that is still intact? This escapes me. The article is complete and the process worked as it should with a living encyclopedia. If I damaged something, I apologize. Please reinstate my account.
- You did damage something. Please, please, please read "Types of Vandalism." Vandalism is damaging to the Wikipedia project. So yes, you did damage it, even if you weren't aware that you did. Meretechnicality (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Damage implies that something is changed in a way that it is no longer the same. Car damage for instance - I have an accident, it is damaged. The mechanical pieces may be repaired, but may not be in pristine condition. Take the Uruguay article. It was changed (by me in an effort to educate - are there any admins that are teachers? They would understand me...) The article was reverted to its original PRISTINE condition. There is no damage to the encyclopedia at present. I sincerely apologize for ruffling everyone's feathers, but there has to be a better way for you all to work. Perhaps you need a joint task force with some educators to see how this encyclopedia can partner with teachers and students in the future.
And again - I feel as if you are punishing me for my disagreement regarding my students page creation. The vandalism article (which I did read) clearly states "Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued)." Administrators usually only block when multiple warnings are given. Where were my warnings? Exactly - I had none. I had an indefinite block placed on me.
It doesn't matter that the revision was undone, or that it was done with education/learning in mind. By introducing falsities into an article, you damaged Wikipedia. It may have been fixed, but you changed an article with the intent of damaging it. That is why you were banned.
I have no way of punishing you. I have no rights to block, ban, or approve deletion. [[1]] You can check, if you'd like. You had no warnings because you had a history consisting almost entirely of vandalism. That is a case where warning is almost never given out. Meretechnicality (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There was never ANY intent to damage. I have shared that multiple times now.
Also, what history was given? I have showed my classes - typically once a semester- that Wikipedia is editable. Which isn't a problem anymore. I simply will tell them this is a terrible resource and I will FAIL any student that attempts to use it in ANY way. Period. No additional editing. And a loss of students for Wikipedia.
Students shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source anyway. Which you edited the article Uruguay to prove, but it still counts as vandalism. Here's another policy saying you shouldn't do what you did (sourced from WP:POINT): "If you feel that it is too easy to add misinformation to Wikipedia, do not create an elaborate hoax with hopes of getting publicity for it." While your situation is different, it is similar enough to apply this policy (do not edit Wikipedia to prove a point). Meretechnicality (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This was not about publicity. This was about teaching students - real life education. Something you might not be familiar with. Classrooms are warzones these days - and in my experience, schools have taught students to cheat using any means necessary. I simply am showing students that cheating should not happen - good sources and reliable ethics get you far in life. I had 27 out of 32 AP Environmental Science students cheat - which is where this began. Your having to change an article back changed the life of some of those kids! Cant we work together - create a process where this is educational? With out the education field there would be no need for encyclopedias anyways.
I know it isn't about publicity, which is why I said that "your situation is different" but WP:POINT does say that you shouldn't edit to make a point. And I know that classrooms are warzones. Trust me, I do.
I am trying to work with you here, I'm sorry if I'm going about it in a bad way. I am not quite sure what this has to do with cheating, can you please explain? Meretechnicality (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I definitely do not think you are trying to work with me. It is all connected. Wikipedia was used in my classroom to cheat collaboratively - which was addressed and discussed as not an option for research, much less plagiarism and dissemination of plagiarized material for classmates to use. I am an upstanding educator - nominated for teacher of the year, and receiving a finalist spot in a national award competition. I am the GOOD GUY here, and I don't feel like I have been treated well through ANY of this. I understand educating people - but man!
I'm sorry that you feel you haven't been treated well :( I've been trying to be as kind as I can while still giving the message. Sorry if that doesn't come across. I want to reach a solution so I can go to bed, because it's getting late.
We never said you were the bad guy. No one is the bad guy here. Not you, not us, nobody. We're just...people. In any case, I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedia was used as a cheating platform. However, there isn't much that can be done to avoid that, other than to harshly punish those who do cheat. Congratulations on your awards, also. Nevertheless, no matter what circumstances you put behind it (unknowing, for education, etc.) you still broke a Wikipedia policy (Don't edit to prove a point), and as such, your ban will probably not be lifted for a while. In the meantime, I encourage you to read up on the New User's Guide (I don't have a link handy, sorry) and to request your ban be lifted once you've proven that you're familiar and ready to follow all of Wikipedia's policies.
Meretechnicality (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I have read the material you sent me, and have stated my case as to why I should not be blocked - in accordance to Wikipedia policy. I have quoted said suggestions and policies from the policies pages, and believe I have been blocked unduly. I was never warned. There was no malicious intent. I was not aiming at damage to property. I have apologized, and stated that I understand the policies that are in place. I believe that I have met the requirements for reinstatement. I need reinstated so that I can defend the previous claims that my article with my students should not have been deleted.
You're not even an administrator either are you?
I'm not an administrator. I said that earlier. I just want this solved.
And I'm pretty sure you haven't apologized. That's okay though, I'll take your saying "I've apologized" as a somewhat backhanded apology. Okay. But here's the thing. You may not have intended to damage Wikipedia, but you did. If you want to be unblocked, then instead of talking about how you were unjustly blocked, try appealing in a way where you actually acknowledge your own guilt and mistakes instead of others'. Because you were blocked for vandalism; maybe apologize and tell them you won't do it again. It may not work, especially since you've annoyed lots of administrators and had several failed block attempts, but it could work. If you want more specific advise, look at the bottom of your Block Appeal box and read "Guide to Appealing Blocks." Meretechnicality (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I apologized multiple times throughout the discourse. Period. No backhanded about it. I still think it is wrong - my page should not have been deleted. I do not apologize for teaching students - but I apologize for offending anyone. And I stated that I would follow the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8083:1AF0:8036:FDE0:698D:2A76 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't see you apologizing, but maybe I just missed it. In that case, I'm sorry! You may want to submit a new unblock request if the one above is dismissed (which it probably will be), stating this in the ways outlined in the Guide to Appealing Blocks, saying that from now on you will follow guidelines, and making sure that you don't make it about anyone else. As long as it doesn't appear that you're going to edit disruptively, then you will probably be unblocked. Probably. Meretechnicality (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bryanturnerhca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I stated, I have learned my lesson. I read the material suggested by other editors and admin. I am deeply sorry for editing a page, even though it was for non-hurtful intent (ie educating my students). I respectfully request my account be reinstated, and that we have the opportunity to form a forum specifically designed for interactions between educators and wikipedia leadership. This would be immensely beneficial for both the field of education, and Wikipedia, as it acts as a source of information. Please consider this a deep, heartfelt appeal to be a contributing member of this organization.
Accept reason:
With consensus of several administrators, and the agreement of the blocking administrator, I shall unblock you on the basis of your above assurances. I hope that from now on you will be able to edit without repeating the kinds of mistakes that led to the block, in which case you should be able to remain unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Materialscientist:, my opinion is that this unblock request is meaningfully different than previous requests. I think given the extensive discussion that has occurred here, Wikipedia can now reasonably expect no further edits of that sort, from this user. I think it is worth considering an unblock here, and note that I was very definitely firmly in the no-unblock camp, earlier. Regardless of the status of the unblock review, note that there is already an education program. See Wikipedia:Education program. I have had no involvement with them and only found out about them when I searched, this morning. But, Bryanturnerhca, I hope you find that helpful, regardless of whether or not you are unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'd also like to vouch for Bryan. His tone and conduct, which was why I was originally concerned with him, have changed drastically since yesterday. This request is respectful, especially next to the others. He does seem to be genuinely sorry about his actions, and I think that he probably won't do it again. Meretechnicality (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bryan, in view of what you said in your latest unblock request, I too am willing to see you unblocked, but since it is considered that under most circumstances the blocking administrator should be given a chance to comment before an account is unblocked, please be patient and wait until he has a chance to respond. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)