User talk:Donaldstrumpcard

Hi. You're someones sock, and as such I've indef'd you. Ed Trice for evidence. Anyone who cares to put forward evidence for whose sock you are, please do it here William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

You know, you had a good thing going at first with the lack of investigation or evidence of this sockpuppetry claim. But then I saw your history of disruptive edit warring. And after that, I read your comment below. Go somewhere else and play your little head games if that's how you feel you're uplifting the human race. We're interested in having people edit who want to work on an encyclopedia, not engage in petty vendettas. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (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.

I am no ones Sock. I have only this account. Mr. Trice is under investigation for his internet activity and my observations of his account have only been minor. I have only made very small changes to accuratly reflect his "puffed" biography. Feel free to email me at the address associated with this account and I will hapliy discuss things with you. If you are unable to locate my email, then kindly provide yours and I will clarify the situation for you. And my user named was selected specifically so Trice would know who I am.

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).

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

Request reason:

Look. It should be obvious I don't know how to use this thing. As far as a vendetta, correcting someones "puffing" and providing the truth should not be an offense.

Your comment "We're interested in having people edit who want to work on an encyclopedia, not engage in petty vendettas. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)" is also very telling. You also must not be interested in accuracy if your "evidence" againt me is some vague warning by someone who does not explain what or why things were disruptive.[reply]

I would suggest that in the interest of "fairness" you should first review the edits I did and see how disruptive they were. Trice claimed to have invented a game and I suggested it be "patented". That change still remains. He also claimed to have developed a program that operated on 7 mz and then it was posted as 16 mz. I simply changed it to reflect what he had actually posted before. I do not know if he changed it to 16mz or not. He had stated before it was 7mz. That is much more impressive a task.

He claimed that his program performed "above 2200" when the link he provided clearly showed it performed at a lower rate." The United States Chess Federation was unable to substantiate his claim when I contacted them in Crossville,TN.

I would like Wiki to be accurate and free of vendettas as well as inflated biographies.You may choose to ban me if you wish. The power is yours.

I don't know all the "in's" and "outs" of web posting. If I got a warning, I never saw it and I am sure if I did there was little explanation of what was going on. I would much rather not have anything to do with Trice. However he tends to suck people in whever he goes.

Lastly, I am sorry if anything I posted offended anyone. Nothing I posted I feel can be construed as hostile. If you will reinstate my account I will willingly not post or edit Mr. Trice's biography.

Decline reason:

Despite Daniel's response, and though there are good reasons to call your editing disruptive, the true reason behind your block is that this either is not your only account, or that you have been somehow recruited to join the conflict between Trice and other Wikipedia editors. Either kind of behavior is categorically forbidden, and since you have no other interests on Wikipedia you cannot be unblocked. Mango juice^talk 20:56, 30 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand and will not post on Trice's biography

Decline reason:

Since you are blocked, you will indeed not post on Trice's biography. If there is some other unrelated editing you are interested in, you haven't mentioned it. Mango juice^talk 20:56, 30 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have only one account Please unblock

Decline reason:

Removing duplicate - please only post one of these at a time. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (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.

Mango, I have only one account. I have never posted as anyone else and was not recruited by anyone else to post. If my intent was to be a Wiki-vandal, I would simply open up other accounts and go on my merry way. I do not know if I have any other subjects I want to comment upon yet. Having only recently discovered the site existed, I would be hard pressed to know that now. I have done some looking on other folks pages and I must say that IMO, some of the folks that have not been banned or that have been banned and are now editing again have been more blatant and disruptive than it is being alleged my posts have been. And I am sure you have to deal with a bunch of annomyous internet jerks. I don't envy you that, but I am not one of them. But also, to be accused of having multiple accounts and condemned(without proof) and accused of being recruited by someone else to post(trust me,lots of people including the FBI don't like what Mr. Trice puts on the internet) is untrue,innacurate and unfair. Please restore my editing rights

Let's be clear. You know Ed Trice in real life, right? ~~And he told you about his difficulties on Wikipedia, right?~~ What is your connection to him? Mango juice^talk 21:33, 30 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have only one account Please unblock

Decline reason:

There appear to be other more pressing concerns about your motives here. I am not comfortable unblocking you at this time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:04, 31 January 2009 (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.

Mango.. my email is [Removed by Just to clarify (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC) to protect his privacy] I will be happy to discuss this in private. I do know Trice but did not know he had any troubles on Wikipedia. I only found out about his biography after trying to defend myself from an unrelated attack elsewhere as part of research for a complaint to the FBI.[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you. Be cautious William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]