User talk:D.w.chadwick
December 2014
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Mongolia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Note: please see WP:ANI#Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content where these edits are being discussed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
D.w.chadwick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia is a fantastic source of FACTs and FIGUREs. Adding some verifiable facts to a Wikipedia page is not disruptive editing, but rather, is information of value to the reader. I would question why you, Mr Barek, have the right or even the nerve, to suggest that adding FACTs to a Wikipedia page is disruptive. I have been a member of Wikipedia longer than you, Mr Barek, and have contributed money to it as well. I fully respect Wikipedia, and I would hope that you do as well. So I would therefore kindly request that you desist in your god-like behavior, stop removing my verifiably true statements, and unblock my account. On the other hand, if you can point to FACTs that disprove mine, then I will be more than glad to correct my edits.
Decline reason:
You have not addressed the reason for your block as outlined above and below. There isn't a chance you'll be unblocked unless you do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:16, 8 December 2014 (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.
- The offsite soliciting of these edits to a large number of Wikipedia articles is being discussed at WP:ANI#Large group of socks/meatpuppets adding slavery content, to which you were directed prior to your block. Rather than participating in the discussion, you simply restored the content. Thus you were blocked, as have most of the sock/meatpuppet accounts engaged in the disruptive spamming of Wikipedia.
- On a secondary note, time on Wikipedia is irrelevant - what matters is following Wikipedia policies and content guidelines (again, as is being discussed in that ANI thread). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the temporary block on my account. I realise that our anti-slavery campaign violated the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, and that we will have to use another method in order to get our message across permanently on countries' Wikipedia pages. However, sometimes the moral imperative of a cause is greater than the legal constraints that currently apply, and when this is the case, it leads to people breaking the law for the greater good. History is awash with such good cases (the suffragettes being one such example.) I believe that our anti-slavery campaign was another such instance. I would like to refer you all to this latest u-tube video which eloquently gets the message across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnns_ct5c7c
A Happy New Year to you all