User talk:JimA

Welcome!

Hello, JimA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - I saw you never received a welcome message! While you're waiting to hear back about your unblock request, you may wish to read some of the information presented in this Welcome message. These links can help you learn your way around Wikipedia and how to do things here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

"Uninvited Company" (UC) has totally abused his powers. I was unfairly blocked by this person because he alleged that I had repeatedly posted allegedly "unsourced" information. This is not true. The information I posted had an external website with tons of doumentary evidence that provided more "sourcing" than anyone could ever ask for. I have to conclude that UC never even bothered to look at any of that material. When he blocked and challenged me about this, I provided yet more information in the form of press clippings from newspapers in France and UK proving beyond the shadow of any doubt that the story I was reporting was true. Then UC reverted to a different justification: claiming that I had refused to discuss my entries and/or their wording. This is a blantant LIE. I never refused to discuss anything with anyone. In fact the first person who challenged me to such a discussion was UC, and I fully and honestly responded. I asked him to tell me if there was any instance when I had declined such a discussion. At that point UC started to ignore my correspondence and refused to answer me. The fact is that the story I posted, and which is VERY important for all email users and students the world over, upsets powerful people in academia who would love to see it supressed. Indeed, since I posted the story, it was erased by other wiki readers. I then re-posted. These people - whoever they are - were trying to supress the uncomfortable truth. I am perfectly happy to submit my additions/entries to the most public scrutiny. The people who should be blocked are those who kept erasing my factually true entries; not me! In this regard, I consider myself a victim of censorship. In this case UC is an agent - unwilling or otherwise - of parties who want to suppress perfectly correct and 100% perfectly sourced information because they do not like it. UC is acting as a censor and not as a guardian. This is a gross abuse of the power that Wikipedia has given UC. I simply request that an unbiased 3rd party judge this matter. I have a full record of all the correspondence between myself and UC in addition to a full record of the entries he has suppressed.

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.

Administrator use only:

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= "Uninvited Company" (UC) has totally abused his powers. I was unfairly blocked by this person because he alleged that I had repeatedly posted allegedly "unsourced" information. This is not true. The information I posted had an external website with tons of doumentary evidence that provided more "sourcing" than anyone could ever ask for. I have to conclude that UC never even bothered to look at any of that material. When he blocked and challenged me about this, I provided yet more information in the form of press clippings from newspapers in France and UK proving beyond the shadow of any doubt that the story I was reporting was true. Then UC reverted to a different justification: claiming that I had refused to discuss my entries and/or their wording. This is a blantant LIE. I never refused to discuss anything with anyone. In fact the first person who challenged me to such a discussion was UC, and I fully and honestly responded. I asked him to tell me if there was any instance when I had declined such a discussion. At that point UC started to ignore my correspondence and refused to answer me. The fact is that the story I posted, and which is VERY important for all email users and students the world over, upsets powerful people in academia who would love to see it supressed. Indeed, since I posted the story, it was erased by other wiki readers. I then re-posted. These people - whoever they are - were trying to supress the uncomfortable truth. I am perfectly happy to submit my additions/entries to the most public scrutiny. The people who should be blocked are those who kept erasing my factually true entries; not me! In this regard, I consider myself a victim of censorship. In this case UC is an agent - unwilling or otherwise - of parties who want to suppress perfectly correct and 100% perfectly sourced information because they do not like it. UC is acting as a censor and not as a guardian. This is a gross abuse of the power that Wikipedia has given UC. I simply request that an unbiased 3rd party judge this matter. I have a full record of all the correspondence between myself and UC in addition to a full record of the entries he has suppressed. |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= "Uninvited Company" (UC) has totally abused his powers. I was unfairly blocked by this person because he alleged that I had repeatedly posted allegedly "unsourced" information. This is not true. The information I posted had an external website with tons of doumentary evidence that provided more "sourcing" than anyone could ever ask for. I have to conclude that UC never even bothered to look at any of that material. When he blocked and challenged me about this, I provided yet more information in the form of press clippings from newspapers in France and UK proving beyond the shadow of any doubt that the story I was reporting was true. Then UC reverted to a different justification: claiming that I had refused to discuss my entries and/or their wording. This is a blantant LIE. I never refused to discuss anything with anyone. In fact the first person who challenged me to such a discussion was UC, and I fully and honestly responded. I asked him to tell me if there was any instance when I had declined such a discussion. At that point UC started to ignore my correspondence and refused to answer me. The fact is that the story I posted, and which is VERY important for all email users and students the world over, upsets powerful people in academia who would love to see it supressed. Indeed, since I posted the story, it was erased by other wiki readers. I then re-posted. These people - whoever they are - were trying to supress the uncomfortable truth. I am perfectly happy to submit my additions/entries to the most public scrutiny. The people who should be blocked are those who kept erasing my factually true entries; not me! In this regard, I consider myself a victim of censorship. In this case UC is an agent - unwilling or otherwise - of parties who want to suppress perfectly correct and 100% perfectly sourced information because they do not like it. UC is acting as a censor and not as a guardian. This is a gross abuse of the power that Wikipedia has given UC. I simply request that an unbiased 3rd party judge this matter. I have a full record of all the correspondence between myself and UC in addition to a full record of the entries he has suppressed. |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= "Uninvited Company" (UC) has totally abused his powers. I was unfairly blocked by this person because he alleged that I had repeatedly posted allegedly "unsourced" information. This is not true. The information I posted had an external website with tons of doumentary evidence that provided more "sourcing" than anyone could ever ask for. I have to conclude that UC never even bothered to look at any of that material. When he blocked and challenged me about this, I provided yet more information in the form of press clippings from newspapers in France and UK proving beyond the shadow of any doubt that the story I was reporting was true. Then UC reverted to a different justification: claiming that I had refused to discuss my entries and/or their wording. This is a blantant LIE. I never refused to discuss anything with anyone. In fact the first person who challenged me to such a discussion was UC, and I fully and honestly responded. I asked him to tell me if there was any instance when I had declined such a discussion. At that point UC started to ignore my correspondence and refused to answer me. The fact is that the story I posted, and which is VERY important for all email users and students the world over, upsets powerful people in academia who would love to see it supressed. Indeed, since I posted the story, it was erased by other wiki readers. I then re-posted. These people - whoever they are - were trying to supress the uncomfortable truth. I am perfectly happy to submit my additions/entries to the most public scrutiny. The people who should be blocked are those who kept erasing my factually true entries; not me! In this regard, I consider myself a victim of censorship. In this case UC is an agent - unwilling or otherwise - of parties who want to suppress perfectly correct and 100% perfectly sourced information because they do not like it. UC is acting as a censor and not as a guardian. This is a gross abuse of the power that Wikipedia has given UC. I simply request that an unbiased 3rd party judge this matter. I have a full record of all the correspondence between myself and UC in addition to a full record of the entries he has suppressed. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I am going to ask the blocking admin about this, because it does look a bit odd. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have left a message to the blocking admin[1], when I hear back from him I will tell you. If I do not hear back from him in a day or so I will unblock you, as I don't think you were properly warned. I don't agree with your behaviour, I just think the punishment is diproportional. We run by consensus here, and if many other editors disagree then you must accept that. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am also here as a result of the unblock request. Please try to calm down and view this a little less personally - I assure you third parties are now looking into this (thanks HighInBC), and to use terms like "gross misconduct", and "censorship" and suggesting who "should be blocked instead" can only inflame the situation. We're all volunteers, and sometimes errors are made, and they are righted more easily and quickly if the situation does not turn into a hostile one. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We are volunteers?!?! You mean I don't have a paycheck coming??? Dam!(kidding) HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)