User talk:Nirelan

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).

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

Request reason:

Please explain what rule I broke. I proved that everything I posted was true and Ryulong obviously only blocked me for a friend that dosen't like the information I posted.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for continuing to add information that consensus has determined that should not be added. If you want the specific rule that you broke, it is consensus. Tendentious editing, rampant sockpuppetry, and false accusations of bias alone can get an editor banned, let alone stretching such disruption over a period of months. If you wish to be unblock, cease the unilateral additions, futile sockpuppetry, and useless accusations, and start learning about consensus-making and civility. Note that this is only an indefinite block, not a permanent ban. The block will be lifted when you agree to edit civilly and constructive according to the above terms, and follow the terms. As for now, block upheld. -- ²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physicq I agree when it comes to consensus, but the member that requested I be blocked did not disscuss anything she reverted in the talk page. Please look at the inventors section in the Dave Winer talk page. How can I be the one that is not forming a consensus when I tried to talk about it and she had me banned because she dosen't like the information? -- Nirelan

The edits Nirelan is defending on Feb. 18 at Talk:Dave_Winer#Inventors are the same edits he had been banned for making on Feb, 9, with 6 reverts then to his credit against the consensus of many other editors besides me. Group consensus about why those edits are POV rather than factual can be seen in this diff. Not one other person who edits Dave Winer has objected to blocking Nirelan's vandalism. betsythedevine 01:05, 20 February 2007 (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.

I hate to have to tell you this, but Wikipedia doesn't accept original work. See WP:NOR, and also WP:VAIN. Sorry. --John Nagle 08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted the Articles for Deletion marker. You can argue against deletion, but deleting the Articles for Deletion tag does not help your case. --John Nagle 08:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough for an article to be interesting. It has to be notable. "Notable" has specific meaning on Wikipedia. See WP:WEB for what makes a web page notable, and WP:SOFT for what makes a piece of software notable. It's not just you; about a thousand articles a day are deleted from Wikipedia. Yes, you can add anything, but that doesn't mean it stays in. Also, since your user name is "NIreland" and the article is about "Nick Ireland", it's assumed that you are writing about yourself.

You can argue against deletion, by writing your argument on the article's Articles for Deletion page, but deleting the Articles for Deletion template won't stop the process. --John Nagle 08:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your {{db-spam}} tagging of Dave Winer

I removed the {{db-spam}} tag that you added to Dave Winer because the article is not blatant advertising. As I replied on the article's talk page, you will need to list the article in AfD if you believe that the article should be deleted. Note that I am not stating my opinion on whether the article should be deleted, just what procedure you need to follow. -- Gogo Dodo 08:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: You tagged the article for speedy deletion due to it being blatant advertising, which the article is not. If you have issues with the factuality of the article, you can use the appropriate disputed templates. Or you can opt to request that the whole article be deleted by listing it in an AfD. -- Gogo Dodo 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the AfD banner you removed from Dave Winer

Hello Nirelan. I don't understand why you removed the AfD banner from the Dave Winer article, after User:Random832 nominated the article for deletion, apparently as a favor to you, and you participated in the actual deletion debate.

Note that removal of the deletion banner is cited as vandalism by WP:VANDAL:

Avoidant vandalism

"Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue."

Since your contribution record is so short, you must be a new user. Please try to help us take your views seriously by following the expected policy steps. EdJohnston 03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On User_talk:EdJohnston you replied:

"I removed it becuase they cleaned up the article. The template says that should be left there until the disscussion is resolved and it was definatily resolved because the only person that felt the article should be changed is now happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirelan (talk • contribs) 26 January 2007"

I'm afraid this is not how the process goes. It's not up to you to decide when the debate gets closed. Normally the person who closes it is an administrator, and he follows the steps given in Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Please put the banner back on, and you can still avoid being cited for vandalism. EdJohnston 03:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TALK page

Please raise your objections in the talk pages of articles where you have an issue with the way things are phrased or how the article is organized, not by blanking entire sections or articles without discussion. --Random832(t c) 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel exactly the same as the person above. In order for you to make such drastic changes in articles you will, in the future, need to site all your sources. I will watch very closely at the few articles that you seem to have problems with and perhaps together we can fairly improve their quality. If you wish to vandalize articles by erasing entire sections without cause and making bold claims as to why you feel entitled to do so, you will be subsequently reported for your vandalism. Have a nice day.Tester er 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I apologize for reporting you and warning you. I was asked to step in and help with the situation. I looked briefly at the article and at your edits and assumed that you were just another jerk adding crap to piss people off. I was wrong. I should have taken more time to examine the situation, and I did not and for that I am sorry. I see that you're in fact trying to help, and not hurt Wikipedia. Gan fon 21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Ganfon made this apology to Nirelan after a hasty glance at a very few of his edits, and in the context of Nirelan's misstatements that he (Nirelan) wanted to "improve" the article but "fanboys" of Dave Winer were trying to block him. After taking a closer look, Ganfon admitted that he made a mistake because (as stated above) he looked only "briefly" at the article. So I don't think it's appropriate to leave this apology standing with no explanation, since Ganfon later decided it was a mistake. betsythedevine 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on February 9 2007 to Dave Winer

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 96 hours. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you indefinitely for solely edit warring on Dave Winer under this and other usernames. If you wish to be unblocked, please use {{unblock|Your statement as to why you should be unblocked}}—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Dave Winer's talk page

C'mon, Betsy has made it impossible for anyone not to agree. I played nice and did change anything for a while in the hopes that we could have a real discussion, but I will not be pushed around because someone that has made over 700 blog posts about Dave Winer calls me biased. http://www.google.com/search?as_q=dave+winer&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=betsydevine.weblogger.com&as_rights=&safe=images - Nirelan

Nirelan, Dave Winer is on my blogroll--on the sidebar of my blog. That means that every page my blogware creates and Google knows about--every individual post I ever made, every department, every page with multiple posts for one day--will have the name "Dave Winer." Yes, after 4 years of blogging, that is probably about 700 pages by now. Please don't take people's efforts to maintain normal Wikipedia standards as a personal effort to "push you around." betsythedevine 01:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy show me one of the posts Google found that is only there due to the blogroll. -- Nirelan

Nirelan, how about if you prove just a few of your many allegations, instead of asking us to disprove them for you. For example, please share with us a link to the 700th blog post I made that mentioned Dave Winer. 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Besty, look at the Google link. http://www.google.com/search?as_q=dave+winer&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=betsydevine.weblogger.com&as_rights=&safe=images

That link simply doesn't show what you claim it does. OK, go to the last page of those Google results--[2]. Notice that Google's "769" is in fact only 114 pages. Then check out the items on that page and elsewhere--notice that your search terms gives a positive result every time I mention anyone named Dave or David--and in the final case, a postitive result when I don't even do that, based purely on "Dave Winer" being in my blogroll: [3] betsythedevine 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object if I move the above discussion of Betsy's web posting habits to Nirelan's Talk page? I don't see that it's relevant to the improvement of this article. I haven't noticed any other editors questioning Betsy's ability to keep a neutral tone in her contributions, though I'm aware that User:Danja feels that Dave Winer is not a good judge of his own contributions. EdJohnston 03:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, Ed. I am moving this argument from Dave Winer's talk page to Nirelan' talk page. betsythedevine 04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]