Username vs. article

Btw. with "Arnaiz-Villena's personal article page" I meant the article page "Antonio Arnaiz-Villena". This here is your personal user page in your function as a WP editor, which is primarily intended for messages and discussions between single users, or for notifications on specific issues. All the best, Trigaranus (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Trigaranus for your incredible work for Wikipedia,even if we do not agree.You can talk to me at the phone or by E-mail and I can give you all explanations you wish about my work and motivations. Now,I have been extremely bussy ,as probably you too.Regards--Arnaiz1 (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks for the flowers. I am quite sorry we disagree. I am certain you are a very proficient academic in your own medical/genetic field, some of your publications in which I have in fact read. But speaking as a linguist (without a hidden agenda or any personal ties to your more prominent contenders), all I can say is that diachronic language change and the search for genetic relations between languages is no less complex a field than Genetics itself. And as a congenial word of advice, I would like to remind you that within academic research, certainty about one's own methods, and findings, can only be the result of submitting it to the scrutiny of one's more experienced peers, and not an obstacle to it. All the best, Trigaranus (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

/* Block warning */

Please stop edit warring on your biography. That is both a violation of WP:3RR and WP:COI. We have strict guidelines for bios about living people; if you feel you are being libeled, please see WP:living for details on how to proceed. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence adds useful detail. The sentence following it clearly says that the judgement was overturned. So there is no libel. It simply adds information. Suppressing information does not help matters. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deer friend, You cannot put up a canceled sentence taken in a distorted and sesationalistic newspaper ,handled by my enemies. You cannot put the cancelled (not reverted9sentece itself,neither.The sentense does not exist according to the Higher Court. It is obvious you want to damaging me.You are damaging Wikipedia. It seems you are acting in a desperate way ,not like linguists.Up to you. Regards AntonioArnaiz1 (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaiz1, please be aware of the guidelines set out on WP:NLT. Should you resort to legal action in pursuing your side of the dispute on the article Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, this would mean that you, and any sockpuppet accounts you may have, will be blocked from editing until the legal issue has been settled in court. As the article on AAV stands now, all information about the contentious issue is properly sourced. Any charges you may wish to file under libel regulations would therefore have to be against the publications quoted, and not against WP and WP editors, respectively. Consequently, any continued effort to influence WP by litigation will result in your being unable to further edit its contents, whilst continued accusations of libel against the editors on your part will have to be regarded as WP:Disruptive editing. Trigaranus (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to disrupt the article, I will ask to have you blocked. I'm sorry that you don't like the material, but it is in the public record and well sourced. Sue the papers if they've libeled you. — kwami (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 00:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Arnaiz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not asuck puppet,but using my own nwme

Decline reason:

Irrelevant to the issue of sockpuppetry, unless you would like to declare this your only account. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (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).

Arnaiz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is my only account

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but after reviewing your block log and the associated SPI case, I'm not sure I believe you. TN X Man 17:43, 29 July 2010 (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.

----Arnaiz1 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If this is your only account, then what is the connection between you and User:Tinpa, User:Virginal6, and User:Symbio04? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginal and Symbio have worked together with me(the 1st one is involved in the same WPlibel),I have no idea about Timpa

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).

Arnaiz1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not editing with a nick name ,but with my real name.I do not have several accounts Arnaiz1 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:DUCK. to contest this please e-mail the blocking admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 3 August 2010 (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.