Inor R
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Relpmek (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
May 2015
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC) |
I am Relpmek Inor R (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Inor R (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wanted to improve the articles about Mona Lisa and the Speculations about her. I made mistakes. From now on I'll just use this account.
Decline reason:
Before we go any further, I want you to provide a complete list of accounts that you have created. PhilKnight (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2015 (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 remember all of them. All my accounts in the articles about Mona Lisa and the Speculations are blocked. Inor R (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- And you are here only to add your original research to those articles. You've been doing that for years. Get it properly published and if reliable sources discuss it someone will add it. I'm not surprised you've lost track of your socks. We've missed some, eg MonaCaterina (talk · contribs) and Zaqxswer (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- My published research and its conclusion is the truth. No one argues that it is nonsense. It is properly published and I even received an email from great Prof Martin Kemp. I know much more about it. You are here only to say "just not Kempler" 21 August 2011 16:22 "Sure, we can use reliable source to discuss it, just not Kempler", but this is my research and my conclusion and this is very clear. Zaqxswer is in the article Leonardo da VInci, very good article. Inor R (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- And this is a legal threat by you. talk, do you wish to confirm this? Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a threat. I am telling you what I intend to do. Inor R (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, per WP:NLT you cannot be unblocked until you withdraw any suggestion you intend to take legal action or until the legal action has been resolved. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)