Icouce

Welcome!

Hello, Icouce, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like ISO14000, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

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! Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ISO14000

A tag has been placed on ISO14000 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bsadowski1 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

This edit with "ChinaUpdater" in the summary indicates otherwise. Netalarmtalk 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm relatively new to this, and was interested to check the sources in this article. When I did, spending a considerable amount of time, I found that the article is quoting third party sources verbatim. How should one proceed if one finds an article that is, in my view, unjustly targeted for deletion? Writer's Cramp (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not really what I'm asking. While you do not claim to be ChinaUpdater, why does the edit summary say "Icouce (talk | contribs)(ChinaUpdater)", indicating that you left "ChinaUpdater" in the edit summary. Netalarmtalk 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I was following the Uppsala Mafia story. The evidence and the crimes it implies are much more interesting, and significant to the world at large, than who edit what on Wikipedia. Have you read the article and the citations? Writer's Cramp (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChinaUpdater for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- Atama頭 19:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked one week. For an explanation see Talk:Uppsala_Mafia#Reliable_Sourcing_and_Verbatim_Quotes. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Uppsala_Mafia#THE_Tautological_TRUTH, you are now indef'd as an admitted sock of Tautologist plus you're evading your Icouce block as an IP. As stated below, you can defend yourself on this page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

Why can't I defend myself on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icouce page? I click the section that's labeled "Comments by accused parties," and I can't edit. I also can't defend the validity of the articles I wrote. Doesn't seem fair. The evidence Rlevse shows is incomplete; a review of logs will show edits happening at the same time, and at different times, in two different cities!

In addition, to answer Atama, "little else" is not the smae as nothing else. Moreover, there's now Wiki law against having common interests. Writer's Cramp (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also can't defend myself on Talk:Uppsala Mafia. This smacks of a persecution. I can understand that I'm blocked from creating new articles while all this is under consideration, but to ban me from defending myself on the particular talk pages of the articles in questions, is patently unfair. Writer's Cramp (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I don't live on Wikipedia, so I will need time to respond. I will do my best to do so in the same 24 hour period as the last posting my a Wiki user. Writer's Cramp (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to respond to a couple of points, the reason you can't edit anything other than your own talk page is because you are blocked (as mentioned in the section above). Blocked users are still able to edit their own user talk page (for example to request unblocking). If you would like to respond to points mentioned elsewhere, feel free to do so on your own talk page here, or wait until the block expires in one week and then respond in the relevant places (such as on the article talk page). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 12:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm a real person. A network engineer, so I know systems, which is why I was able to retrieve data, etc. Test me

Decline reason:

You may be a real person, but it appears quite convincing that you are using multiple accounts in a way that violates policy. Jayron32 12:48, 31 October 2009 (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.

What's the convincing evidence for multiple accounts? In my opinion, anything other than a correlation between my IP address and another Wikipedia account, is speculation. I know you can't find any such correlation, because I know I have only used one account for my "real person" editing. If you have evidence refuting this, let's see it. 75.4.228.94 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do I now have an IP address as a signature? I clicked on the "talk" link, and it takes me to a compelely new and blanked discussion page. icouce (Writer's Cramp)75.4.228.94 (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to log in first for your signature to appear properly. You're logged out right now - Alison ^❤ 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Writer's Cramp (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)