User talk:95.241.252.9

Ditto

This block is people being vindictive. An explanation is not repetition of the same comments that need explaning.

Why not try:

editing for evasion of a block on another IP address, apparently evading blocks on accounts,

What IP? This idea is based on what evidence?

The Ip was (insert ip here) the entries are (insert entries here). The style of writing includes (insert style of writing here).

and disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit warring,

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

What would be an example of this poster's "warring" entries?

The warring entries are (insert entries here).

persistent editing to promote a point of view,

Read the above comments. What point of view are those comments supporting? (Bear in mind, this is in the context of a talk page discussion, not the main page.)

The POV concern is (insert POV concern here).

and persistent refusal to accept consensus.

The consensus is (insert consensus here) and your comment

Stupid block here

They are both Italian. One works in Brussels. I got the same email.

Way to drive contributors away with this nonsense. Look at what Guillaume is trying to make disappear from the talk page for something interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500768739 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.191.16 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There has been no explanation to this block. My edits have been good-faith and not made in an attempt to avoid a block from another IP address. Read the edits I have made. What is the POV issue? There has been no consensus relating to the issue at hand, and they were in the context of a discussion on the talk page. My good-faith edits were repeatedly removed; I reverted this when it happened. There was no edit warring or even disagreement; there was a discussion that some other contributor obviously didn't want on the talk page. That doesn't make the conversation vandalism.95.241.252.9 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The explanation for your block can be found in the block log notice by clicking "User contributions" in the sidebar to the left. Same writing style, same content; block is valid. Tiderolls 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Unanswered Questions

• I see no disruptive editing by Guillaume2303. I see only a concerted effort to deal with persistent disruption by a user who is determined to force through the inclusion of unsourced content to promote a particular point of view, with persistent edit warring, accusations of bad faith, refusal to accept consensus, and so on. (On the subject of the content being unsourced, perhaps I can remind you that you have stated that you have "inferred" it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That response (i.e., the “you said” in the detail above) is cited from another IP address (194.78.195.29), not person to whom you were communicating the above response (which was: 95.241.252.9). You might want to answer that one again, and address it to the correct party.

2. Contrary to what you say, I see no evidence of bad faith on Guillaume2303's part. "Vandalism" does not meant anything that you happen to disagree with.

This is the discussion that Guillaume has censored from the talk page:

 This is how the discussion has developed, pasted from the archived version. I'll add comments at the end:

The editor reads a text and then contacts the author--as soon as this occurs, the author is in the social network of the editor. As the entry reads, no texts come from outside the editor's social circle. Initiating contact makes no difference. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And for each an d every journal, the editor is in contact with the authors, so according to your definition, every journal only publishes articles from authors in the editor's social circle. In any case, you are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and I'm done trying to talk to you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not true. Most journals receive submissions from anyone (whether or not s/he has a previous social contact with the editor). This is not the case with b2 and the others here mentioned. In the case of such a newsletter (academic-themed publication), if the author is unknown to the editor, there is no chance of publication 194.78.195.29 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No references currently listed would be removed from the page, which is clarified in the archived text.

b2 apparently does not receive "over the transom" submissions. The key point here above is that if an author is unknown to the editor, his or her work cannot be published. Call that the social network of the editor or call it something else. This publication practice differentiates b2 and the other journals listed from what could be understood as standard journals.

In a sense it is a semantic issue, though "newsletter" instead of "academic journal" is a bit of a stretch, as the texts are peer-reviewed. Those concepts should be in mind when revising the main page to make this clear. 95.241.252.9 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is what WP says about removing other contributors' discussions from talk pages:

“you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines).

3. The answer to your question "why is the IP I was using blocked?" is already given on the talk page of that IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

editing for evasion of a block on another IP address, apparently evading blocks on accounts,

What IP? This idea is based on what evidence?

and disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit warring,

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.

There has been no overriding of anyone's contributions in the posts I have made. I have reverted Guillaiume's deletions of in-progress talk-page discussions. What would be an example of this poster's "warring" entries?

persistent editing to promote a point of view,

Read the above comments. What point of view are those comments supporting? (Bear in mind, this is in the context of a talk page discussion, not the main page.)

and persistent refusal to accept consensus.

There has been a discussion on the talk page regarding various ways to improve how this journal's submission policy is described. This seems to be the purpose of talk pages: When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

Moreover: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

and

Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism.

So, why have these contributions been removed and why has this address been blocked? 95.241.252.9 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Declined requests for unblock cannot be removed for the duration of your block. Additionally, please understand that it is accepted convention for new messages to be posted at the bottom of talk pages. Tiderolls 10:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Again there has been no explanation to this block. The response from User:Tide Rolls makes no sense. Same writing style as who? (If you are comparing to my colleague's IP, who sent me the link to all the censorship and deleting from that talk page, I would expect we have the same writing style as we are not writing in our native language. And I would also expect that we would argue the same content as we have similar backgrounds.) What user contributions are you comparing? There is no "User Contributions" link anywhere, except those that lead to my own. My edits have been good-faith and not made in an attempt to avoid a block from another IP address. Read the edits I have made. What is the POV issue? There has been no consensus relating to the issue at hand, and they were in the context of a discussion on the talk page. My good-faith edits were repeatedly removed; I reverted this when it happened. There was no edit warring or even disagreement; there was a discussion that some other contributor obviously didn't want on the talk page. That doesn't make the conversation vandalism.95.241.252.9 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There has indeed been an explanation for this block. The fact that you have chosen not to accept it does not make it any less of an explanation. As for the rest of your request, it is self-defeating. "I would expect we have the same writing style as we are not writing in our native language. And I would also expect that we would argue the same content as we have similar backgrounds" ... well, uh, OK, thank you for confirming what we thought we heard. More seriously, it is my experience that two speakers of the same language writing in the same nonnative language are more apt to differ in their writing than you and the other IP did. In fact, assuming that you are Italian and he Belgian, per the IPs, it's interesting that your written Englishes both share the same idiosyncrasies. "What user contributions are you comparing?" Yours and his. The other issues are irrelevant to your request since your current block is for block evasion, and I am satisfied that the other admins have correctly designated your conduct as such. And while that block is in effect, that's the only reason that matters, no matter the extent to which you otherwise believe yourself to be in the right. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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've move this unblock request to the end, as talk pages read from top to bottom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

They are both Italian. One works in Brussels. I got the same email.

Way to drive contributors away with this nonsense. Look at what Guillaume is trying to make disappear from the talk page for something interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.191.16 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

---