User talk:Greg Barry
Hello Greg Barry, I hope you continue a watch on the Peter Holmes a Court entry. It is often vandalised by people removing valid links and references to published and verifiable material. Well done so far. Everton Dasent (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Everton. I actually know quite a bit about the Holmes a Court family. When I read the entry for Peter Holmes a Court and found that Slanter Remover had posted a lot of unreferenced fantasy and had removed previously verified and referenced material I made the changes. I will keep an eye on this entry from now on. Greg Barry (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
You are blocked for persistent addition of controversial material to a biography of a living person. This appears to e your sole purpose on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Greg Barry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have not persistently added controversial material. I have added referenced material and used neutral language in accordance with wikipedia policy. My last edits were reverted back to a version which is incorrect. In my last set of edits the most recent available information was added to this page and neutral language was used. After reading the edit history of this page and checking on some of the users involved it has become obvious that this page has been the target of [[sockpuppetry]] and [[edit warring]]. I have not been involved in this and I will not become involved in this activity. I do not think I deserved to be blocked and I think I was hastily blocked because I happened to make some edits when other editors were warring over the page. Some have turned out to be [[sockpuppets]] and others appear to have had vexatious complaints made against them. I think I have just been caught up in this and my blocking was a mistake. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not persistently added controversial material. I have added referenced material and used neutral language in accordance with wikipedia policy. My last edits were reverted back to a version which is incorrect. In my last set of edits the most recent available information was added to this page and neutral language was used. After reading the edit history of this page and checking on some of the users involved it has become obvious that this page has been the target of [[sockpuppetry]] and [[edit warring]]. I have not been involved in this and I will not become involved in this activity. I do not think I deserved to be blocked and I think I was hastily blocked because I happened to make some edits when other editors were warring over the page. Some have turned out to be [[sockpuppets]] and others appear to have had vexatious complaints made against them. I think I have just been caught up in this and my blocking was a mistake. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not persistently added controversial material. I have added referenced material and used neutral language in accordance with wikipedia policy. My last edits were reverted back to a version which is incorrect. In my last set of edits the most recent available information was added to this page and neutral language was used. After reading the edit history of this page and checking on some of the users involved it has become obvious that this page has been the target of [[sockpuppetry]] and [[edit warring]]. I have not been involved in this and I will not become involved in this activity. I do not think I deserved to be blocked and I think I was hastily blocked because I happened to make some edits when other editors were warring over the page. Some have turned out to be [[sockpuppets]] and others appear to have had vexatious complaints made against them. I think I have just been caught up in this and my blocking was a mistake. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
You too?
You've been banned for removing dead links tags which were incorrect? I looked at the link you changed for the CEO resignation article in the Sydney Morning Herald and it worked. Now someone has changed the link to something else. I think the Peter Holmes a Court page needs more eyes on it. There was a sockpuppet investigation that found a whole lot of editors were the same person. Now there are admins who are banning people for providing referenced material.
If you get yourself 'un-banned' let me know on my talk page and we can work out how to proceed. Or you can email me. I am cautious about even editing the page in question at the moment because of these rogue admins banning people.Edasent (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)