User talk:Adamsalti

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).

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

Request reason:

Just clear the page, remove the info and I will leave it all blank. I do not deserve this one strike and your out game. I may well have useful information to contribute.

Decline reason:

Do you? This account has been used solely to promote; until you indicate that you understand the reason you were blocked, and how you will contribute, I'm uncomfortable with unblocking. Kuru (talk) 12:09, 9 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Yes I understand the reason! Wikipedia does not allow advertising or marketing, correct? How does one write an article that is a biography of sorts without referring to facts? Wikipedia allows external links? The information was factual, however not presented well. This is because I was a user for one day and in that time I was learning about wikipedia, formatting and etiquette. Perhaps it's wise for admins not to voraciously attack and remove pages without considering the age of the account or interests of the user first Adamsalti (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry that you are frustrated, however your edits were very much contrary to Wikipedia's policies regarding self-promotion. You ask above "How does one write an article that is a biography of sorts without referring to facts" and the answer is "don't wrote a biography of sorts if you are the subject". You could indeed be unblocked, however you would need to make a new unblock request and provide assurances that you would not continue to promote yourself on any Wikipedia pages. You may find the guideline to appealing blocks a useful resource. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:23, 10 July 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).

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

Request reason:

Asking me how I can contribute to wikipedia is like asking how long a piece of string is. I may well spot a typing or other error in the course of reading or using it. I am not going to spend hours of a day sifting through it for items to correct, just a casual user with interest in facts. Adamsalti (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline:The unblock template appears to have been used incorrectly to continue a conversation, so I'm closing as only one unblock request should be open simultaneously. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:16, 10 July 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.

Perhaps it would have been better had you learnt about Wikipedia, formatting and etiquette before attempting to create an article; spotting typing or other errors, which you suggest you wish to do, would almost certainly not got you blocked. I do, however, appreciate that you are a new user. Given that you cannot write advertisements, and cannot write about yourself, what do you want to do here? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have to learn somehow and with learning comes mistakes and you should aim to encourage correct attitudes rather than take this attitude of - one error and you're out! There is a certain arrogance and false authority amongst admins, see above (all comments). Forgive me I fell of my horse and consequently I will take no further part in this 'click'. Adamsalti (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is certainly ridiculous, different admins, different views. No one understand the word "mistake" or "error" please unblock my account as I agree and understand and even have said this before that I am aware self promotion is not allowed. Jezebel your spelling in the sentence "don't wrote a..." should be "don't write a..." Back to my user ID - If you do not understand then what else do you expect a person to do?! Adamsalti (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Different admins, same view of The Guide to Appealing Blocks. Wikipedia is an international project - and you're picking on someone for spelling when you, yourself said "click" instead of "clique"? This is not an unblock request, it's an attempt to insult. Please review the Guide and WP:AAB - future improper uses of the unblock template will result in removal of your access to this page. Note also: this block applies to YOU, the person. Until you fix this block, you may never edit Wikipedia - having your talkpage access removed will most certainly not help your case. This is a private website, and you agreed to our rules and definitions - not yours (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:34, 12 July 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.

Reviewed comments. Not requesting unblock. Admins cannot be reasoned with 188.222.170.171 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can be reasoned with - I unblock whenever I can, as blocks are preventative and not punishment. Once I'm satisfied that we no longer need to protect, I'd far rather have an editor actually editing according to the rules, rather than stewing in their own juices. Unblocks are not rocket science ... then again, neither are the rules. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm noted again. 82.132.218.244 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended or included, so impossible to note any. By the way, if the 2 IP edits above are by Adamsalti, evading your block will lead to the removal of any possibility of return (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this is the 21st century, I have a mobile, a computer and a laptop, using cell data means I will have a different IP, you should know this if you edit wikipedia! Perhaps citation is needed? Now answer me - WHY do you refuse to UNBLOCK me - do you not understand that people make mistakes? Just answer the question without pathetic remarks. Adamsalti (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your attitude to start. First, editing anonymously while your username is blocked is considered an attempt to evade your block - I don't care how many devices you have or IP addresses - I mean for once would you read the fricking policy when it's given to you? Second, your first edit was to spam this project with a link to **removed personal information** - self-promotion is not permitted; period. We acknowledge some people make mistakes, and that's why in the block notice you're pointed to the Guide to Appealing Blocks - you have yet to come even close to meeting the requirements laid out in perfect English for you. You've done nothing but act like a jerk, and assume that the rules that apply to 14 million other editors don't apply to you - including WP:CIVIL. This is a private website - you AGREED to the rules, policies and processes - why not consider reading up on the ones that you have been shown, and maybe actually act on them? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude? You call me a jerk? My spell check says fricking is not a word and you maintain this site? What a failure and I am glad to not be a part of it. I removed my personal information, DO NOT post it again or references to it. You have no authority or my consent to publish or use these words. Adamsalti (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read again (I know, it's English) I didn't call you a jerk, I said you behaved like one - there's a difference. I used "fricking" because I was being polite enough with you to not use the other word, so WP:AGF a little. And in terms of "personal information" - you did post it once, and when you clicked it you irrevocably permitted its use by Wikipedia. As such, I have the authority and your consent to use it ad infinitum, especially when we're discussing what you did wrong so that maybe you can be permitted to edit here again. Of course, based on your continuing attitude I'm losing faith in that. Dude, I'm the guy trying to HELP you get unblocked ... is this how you treat those that help you usually? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acting like a jerk must imply that I am, therefore you implied I am jerk? This is tedious and funny, I hope you have a sense of humour...? Trademarks and Copyright law states that the owner has rights -IP rights I can ask for it to be removed, not doing so is against the law, maybe not in Canada. Or maybe British Law doesn't apply here. I have read that wiki has a code of conduct and name calling and bullying is not tolerated. This has gone has far enough. I have explained what I will do and not one of you has taken any interest except proclaim authority, take a childish attitude and be sarcastic. Not once have I reacted this way and I don't intend to! Neither should you! Now please read and understand my block requests! Cheers, Bud Adamsalti (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, British law does not apply here, however, when you reply to this, look just above the "Save page" button ... what does it say? "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution". Nobody is bullying you, and I sure as hell am not being sarcastic with you - I have read every single one of your unblock requests, and nothing there remotely matches WP:GAB, period. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result". If you wish to submit a new unblock request that actually meets WP:GAB, go ahead - if not, we might as well just remove your access to this page, as you're simply wasting people's time. Look, if you're doing this poorly with one of the most patient admins on Wikipedia, I'd hate to see what the next admin that sees your unblock request is going to do ... but good luck (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Have read WP:GAB and what I have done is explain, apologise and offer to correct, in summary it is what it asks. You tell me how you interpret it. And what Law applies to wiki and I ask for citation! Adamsalti (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then good luck in your next unblock request - submit it properly, using the correct request format. You'll need to do a far better job - and of course, I recommend you don't pick on anyone for their spelling in this one ... after all it's about you, and beware of reeeaallly bad unblock requests. Hint: there's nothing in your previous unblock requests that worked - try doing something WP:GAB-compliant. If you don't show something to counteract your WP:BATTLE behaviour here, your next decline will be your final one. Adieu (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Requested & Clarification

Please provide the reference to an article or policy that states I cannot remove block requests or this pages content.
Describe your understanding of the unblock request process, including an example of how you would unblock yourself.
Provide proof of what Countries law applies here, I request full references.

Thank You. Adamsalti (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANKING
WP:GAB and WP:AAB - I'm not doing the work for you. Even this incomplete essay may be useful
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use You have already been referred to this, and agreed to it every single time you clicked "Save page"

Now, you've wasted enough time with your continual refusal to read what's been given to you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]