User talk:Gobaudd

Welcome!

Hello, Gobaudd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
How to edit a page and write a great article
The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
The handy Manual of Style
And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing! Kgrr (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak oil

Thank you for your contribution, but I had to delete your recent edit in Peak oil because there are no references anywhere else to the hypothesis you mention in any search engine. When we write articles in Wikipedia, we cannot write articles on new concepts (original research). We can only write about subjects that already exist and document those articles with references. Although you provided a reference to an article, the authors did not formally propose the hypothesis in their article. Please do help with creating articles, but please read the list of guidelines I've provided for you above.Kgrr (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also proposed the deletion of the Officer-Hayes hypothesis article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Kgrr (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Officer-Hayes Hypothesis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Officer-Hayes Hypothesis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Kgrr (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

i was blocked for "sockpuppetry" because some claimed that i was using multiple accounts. i only have one account and it is this one. all i did was make an article and edit some other ones.

Decline reason:

Technical evidence shows that it's very possible that you have been using multiple accounts; in addition, your editing pattern is very similar to two accounts that we have confirmed to be the same person. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

A. Once again I only made edits using this account. I have never used Wikipedia before to edit anything under any other accounts. This is my only account. B. Your "technical evidence" states "Possible that they are Gobaudd" - even it is inconclusive and I am telling you it is wrong. I ask that you pursue the "checkuser" process further to verify for yourself what I am saying. C. If you want to revert all of my edits and delete my one article fine but banning me for something I did not do is unfair. D. What evidence would you like me to provide to prove to you that the accusation is false?

Decline reason:

Per comments below. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.

Thinking about it, I can't make things stack up in any other reasonable way. Specifically, if those other accounts weren't you, then who were they? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that even if you personally have not been using multiple accounts, editing against policy on behalf of someone else (what we call meatpuppetry) is also considered disruptive and is grounds for blocking. If you can provide some sort of reasonable explanation for why your edits are exactly the same as the edits made by those other accounts, we may consider unblocking you. Right now, however, there is nothing to suggest that this block was misplaced. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]