User talk:TheMikol23

Nomination of EPLAR for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EPLAR is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPLAR until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPLAR, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheMikol23. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 20:38, 3 March 2015 (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).

TheMikol23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have only one account, and only ever edit using one account. It seems to be Flat Out is using this as a means to suppress criticism/discussion of his editing of a wikipedia article. This block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption, I have caused no damage or disruption, have only contributed to one article and one discussion. I see the reason now why you suspect it, because myself and some others from Prince Charles hospital have been contributing to the ePLAR. A simple check of the ip logs will confirm I am not even in the same country as the others contributing. I did inform the others once i created the page, hence the sequence of account creation.

Decline reason:

Edit pattern suggests the account connections. only (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2015 (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.

A simple check of the ip logs will confirm I am not even in the same country as the others contributing. Can you explain how you would be aware of where the other accounts are located? —DoRD (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]