User talk:AccurateHistoricalRecord

Sources

It's very important that when you add material to a Wikipedia article that you include a source, so that people can verify that your addition is true.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AccurateHistoricalRecord, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AccurateHistoricalRecord! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 18 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am an expert in Serama. I have tried to present thre REAL information on the breed. However, another group is trying to have much of this information blocked. If you look over the history of the edits, first I simply added it. They blocked it for not having souces. I added sources. They blocked it for technical mistakes in citations. I corrected it. They blocked it by stating they did not like the sources. I posted how they fit by Wikipedia rules, they enlisted help of getting me blocked. I had also tried discussing it in Talk pages and was ignored. This boils down to the fact that I added completely 100% valid information, it just doesn't fit what a certain group wants known as public knowledge. I have wanted to provide unbiased information on the breed and history and have been successfully bullied out by those who represent a biased (economic and prestige interests) group of people. I don't think this is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. If some other admins would like to have a conversation on this, I can show you exactly what I mean. Thank you for your assistance.

Decline reason:

At this point we are only interested in behaviour and your request leaves no confidence that your behaviour will be improving. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:53, 13 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

What behavior are you talking about? I have continually tried to provide references, learning more about Wikipedia to make them correct in format and by the rules. I have not posted anything inaccurate at all, and have tried the methods outlined to make better references in the proper format. Everytime I resubmitted accurate information, I have added additional references to show it is accurate. Yet, there have been continually varied reasons by those biased to remove it. What part of trying to provide accurate information and meeting the guidelines for referencing it is poor behavior?

Decline reason:

Per comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2013 (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.

Had you carefully read our WP:RS policy, you'd know that the sources you're trying to add do not qualify as reliable sources. Until you acknowledge that and agree to abide by our policies, you're not going to be unblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]