Dalej78
{{unblock|I think it's rich of Ivan to just summarily block me without any dialogue. I was in an edit war over Chemtrail conspiracy and a subjective word "erroneous". The editors finally realized the foolishness of that word and cited a source to justify that word. I read the article which clearly stated that 500 out of the 3015 atmospheric scientists surveyed firmly believe or partially believe in spraying, that's 16% out of the experts - enough to make me wonder what do they see? Even though there is a strong and clear majority, I am still interested in free debate and free exchange of information. I understood that's what Wikipedia was about???????????? How is it that you have Tyrannical editors like Ivan that can just summarily block people for life??????????????? That is suppression of free speech and I would argue that Ivan is not interested in building an Encyclopedia only projecting his version of what he deems to be information, not truth}}
Dalej78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ivan, if you look in the article he cited, it's right there: 500 out of 3015 of the world's leading atmospheric scientists firmly believe or partially believe that there is spraying in our atmosphere. The article that he cited and then said I didn't cite because of my edit???????????? This is the TYPICAL LEFTIST TYRANNICAL suppression of information and I would say that YOU are the one that is not interested in building an encyclopedia. I was just citing the source that contradicted your information!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011
Decline reason:
One unblock request at a time, please. You had two. Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Requests containing personal attacks, like these ones did, will not be considered. Any further personal attacks may result in you losing access to this page. Yamla (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2019 (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.
Discretionary sanctions alerts relating to American politics and recently deceased or live people, please read
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Note that deleting a warning or in this case an alert is seen as evidence you have read it. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC) <--- What in the heck is this all about????????????? This was like years ago and now you vandalize my page with this now???????????????????? Where do people at WikiPedia get so much power and I thought WikiPedia was for the people, not the elite few????????????????
May 2019
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Dalej78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was in an edit war. I was blocked for repeatedly deleting what I deemed was a "subjective" word, erroneous. In the course of the edit war, one of the editors from Wikipedia cited a source. In reading that source, see here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011 I deemed that it was inappropriate to say "erroneous" as a considerable number of Atmospheric Scientists (500/3015) surveyed either firmly or partially believed in government spraying. I edited the article to reflect as such and was summarily blocked / banned even though I cited the same source that was cited and used to justify that word erroneous against my edits. This just doesn't seem fair at all and I am extremely frustrated with the editors and the people controlling wikipedia that make these decisions. I vehemently disagree with Ivanvector's reason being "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" which is not true at all!
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2019 (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.
Blanking
editYou are not permitted to blank declined unblock requests for currently active blocks. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- You were warned. You have now lost access to your talk page. Another administrator will be along shortly to review your pending unblock request. If that is declined, that leaves you with WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll also note that your citation absolutely, categorically does not support the claim you are making; you seem to be misreading the citation. My decline of your unblock request and my subsequent removal of your talk page access is unrelated, however; I did not read your citation until after performing those actions. --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- The study you posted doesn't say what you say it does at all. The survey mentioned in the abstract was a survey of 3,015 "people", as in the general population, not "the world's leading atmospheric scientists". The second set of surveys mentioned in the study, which surveyed "contrail experts" and "atmospheric deposition experts", had 77 responses, of which only one responded that they had ever seen any evidence at all in their professional or personal lives of an actual conspiracy of this sort. The manner in which you have spent the last week edit warring over your false interpretation of this study, and your reaction to this block, suggests that you're here to deliberately promote false information, and that is not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for free speech nor a marketplace for the free exchange of ideas. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Dalej78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #25178 was submitted on May 13, 2019 19:14:21. This review is now closed.
is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)