Nandaba Naota (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked indefinitely without any evidence against me, I was banned for having the wrong opinion (i.e. the scientific one) and since no clear reason was given for a permanent block, it should be lifted.
Decline reason:
Unable to find a single reference included in your edits. Appears to be fairly straight-forward trolling and violation of WP:3RR, along with personal attacks. — Yamla 14:46, 29 May 2007 (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.
Well, I added 4 references only in the Child Pornography article, and many many more in the CSA article. Check this version for example where all references are by me: [1] Blocking me for "trolling" is a smokescreen, I've done no such thing and there was no evidence cited for it.
Banning me indefinately for personal attacks makes no sense since I have not used such. An indefinate block is very harsch measures and I have done nothing to deserve that. 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Nandaba Naota (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My unblock request was declined based on incorrect information and my block was a scam in the first place. The reason for decline was motived by: "Unable to find a single reference included in your edits." Which is outright wrong, which I have proven on many occasions. The origonal block reason was "trolling" which ironically is a violation in itself, I have done no such thing but have used peer reviewed research and made serious edits in a controversial area. Unblock me, this block is simply wrong and based on false information. Nandaba Naota 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Deliberate introduction of misinformation into articles, trolling, and unwillingness to discuss. Seems like a legit block to me. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2007 (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.
All information I have added is supported by peer reviewed research. I challenge you to find one edit that I cannot support by research. Unwillingness to discuss? I have filled many many pages with discussion and is always willing to discuss with serious editors. Again the decision is based on false facts. Nandaba Naota 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)