User talk:Davew123

Welcome!

Hello, Davew123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Domain Validation (email), you may be blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any event removing the tag will not stop the discussion or avoid the article being deleted. I have explained my reasoning, both in the proposed deletion and at the current deletion discussion. The way for you to avoid the article being deleted is to explain at the deletion discussion why my reasoning is wrong and/or to edit the article so that it no longer has the issues identified. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain says: If you prevent me publishing online, you are a commie. If you deny I am the owner you are a fraudster. Your two-faced ethical ethnic fraud is so obvious. PS: I have forwarded your "free-press" to the real-press.

Your being incredibly nasty as well as not really making any sense. These sorts of over-the-top emotional reactions are exactly why we discourage people from editing around subjects where they have a conflict of interest. I have endeavored to politely explain to you what is going on here but if you are going to act like this I don't believe I'll bother. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain says: I couldn't be bothered either, other than you think that the only deserving dictators are hippies.

I assume these are supposed to be insults based on some set of beliefs you imagine I have, but to me they are just nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain says: you only publish articles that fit in with your fraudulent view of the world. No wonder the EU is investigating you, Google and WikiLeaks Davew123 (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain says so the moderator thinks that anyone can write a patent. Try it. Then another comment like you can't cite patents because the source isn't reputable. Guess he/she must have an ugly daughter.

The existing entry for Domain Validation doesn't make any sense and does not have any references. How did that get approved? My entry is the correct definition with a fully granted patent to back it up. Davew123 (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Davew123, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I am very capable of reviewing the logic of submissions. Do be aware though that I have many other things to do. If you have a difficult problem drop me a line, but otherwise I am very busy. Davew123 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't adopt such a dismissive attitude when someone is trying to be helpful, as Liz clearly is above. Wikipedia is a collaborative project on which we all work together. It is not a battleground or a forum for slinging mud at other editors as you did above in your conversation with Beeblebrox. Thank you for your attention. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing your disruptive editing after returning from your block. Please read WP:RS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Joe, but fully granted patents are not disruptive, neither is there any need for discussion or controversy. If you continue your "negotiation" about patents you will find the fraud office have some questions for you.Davew123 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit other's user pages [1]. Edit user talk pages.
References to your patents [2] are not from reliable sources
FInally, do not make legal threats, as you appear to do, above, in this edit [3] referring to the "fraud office [having] some questions for you". That edit's edit summary, "Mafia crooks 0%", also appears to be a personal attack, which are not allowed, either. JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disruptive editing. The thread is Davew123 continued disruption after return from block. Thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain says: There was no disruptive editing after 24 hours, other than to complain about your disruptive criticisms. My additions were completely valid updates to swash plates - accurate and interesting. If you continue to stop inventors from adding content, your reputation will be one of establishment bullies trying to rig the market. Davew123 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 Week for your continued disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Other than unfamiliarity with the response procedure my articles/amendments are bonefide [[User:Davew123|Davew123]] ([[User talk:Davew123#top|talk]]) 21:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)}}

Dave Wain adds: By removing my article on Domain Validation (email) you have prevented developers and investigators from having a valuable source of information. By preventing email from being safe, you are indirectly endangering millions of people and costing the Police thousands of man-hours. Davew123 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Wain also adds: By removing my Web Session comments you trying to rewrite history. There are considerable financial ramifications which if malevolent, could result in legal repercussions for yourself and Wikimedia. Davew123 (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough, I have just extended your block to an indefinite one. In addition to being unwilling or unable to even try and understand Wikipedia's basic policies, you have repeatedly made legal threats, which are not permitted and anyone who makes them is indefinitely blocked by default. You must explicitly withdraw any and all legal threats if you are to have any chance whatsoever of being unblocked, and then after that there are still the other issues that led to your first two blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nonex concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Nonex, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2015 (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).

Davew123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

NONEX is one of my genuinely new inventions and should be included

Decline reason:

Nope, you can't promote your creations here, even if you retracted your legal threats which is really a prerequisite for any unblock requests to be considered. Max Semenik (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2015 (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).

Davew123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The correct version of history, including NONEXs is published at http://nonex.me.uk

Decline reason:

Nope, you can't promote your creations here, even if you retracted your legal threats which is really a prerequisite for any unblock requests to be considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:34, 16 December 2015 (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.

{{unblock|Not allowing citations from the Patent Office http://www.ipo.gov.uk/. Their lawyers will be in touch with the University of Wikipedia for clarification}}

I've turned off this ridiculous request and revoked your ability to edit this page. Good luck getting in touch with the University of Wikipedia, hope that works out for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Davew123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #15985 was submitted on Jun 16, 2016 23:52:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]