User talk:Donnatar
Donnatar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have a right to defend a wiki, I have been following certain WIKI's and they are a valuable resource for me and when they are threatened I have a right to defend them. There is nothing wrong in what I wrote, I only defended the points being mentioned by others. If you do not release this block I will appeal this to the highest authority and make sure people know that this board is tyrannical and not democratic! Give me your basis for blocking!
Decline reason:
The basis is given clearly in the block notice. Please use your original account for any further requests. Kuru (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2015 (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.
I guess you are referring to "urquhart" and you are making an assumption that since the IP is the same it must be the same person? I do not agree with that assumption since many people can be using the same IP all over the world. To further explain, my wife and I have been following Richard Kimball's progression in the telehealth space and we are avid telehealth proponents given the mess the US healthcare situation is in and how it is affecting my family today. If you read up on Richard not only will his programs help healthcare but in addition they will reduce the high cost of Gov't entitlement programs affecting the budget. In addition we both have been to Scotland thus the reason for the account names to be named after castles. I recall, in the USA at least, you are innocent until "proven" guilty and merely having the same IP does not prove guilt. Maybe you should read up on Gestapo tactics since it seems that those are the ones you are deploying. Furthermore can you explain if my account was closed for any other violation other than your supposed IP matching? I would like both accounts reinstated asap. If not, I will pursue this issue to the top of command. 01:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)01:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)~~
Donnatar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My wife and I created WIKI accounts from the same IP address. We have been following Richard Kimball's progression in the telehealth space and we are avid telehealth proponents. If you read up on Richard not only will his programs help healthcare delivery but in addition they will reduce the high cost of Gov't entitlement programs. My wife and I have been to Scotland thus the reason for the account names, which are named after castles. Can you tell me if my account was closed for any other violation other than IP matching? I belong to various healthcare discussion groups and using WIKI helps provide a reference point so I would appreciate if you allow the edits and keep the wiki. I would like to add material to Richard Kimball's WIKI to establish "more" notability. Notability, I feel was initially established via the Stanford, Brookings tie ups and the many interviews where he was quoted (not a few). Can my comments be put back into the discussion and not crossed out? lastly, I plan to be more active with WIKIs now that I have more time as I am approaching retirement age. One in particular I noticed that needs improvement and I am performing research on it now with FOIA requests....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_P._Johnson Thank you for your time and I hope you can clear this issue up. Donnatar (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Two accounts on the same IP can be explained, however in addition to you and your wife there's this drawer full of socks. Additionally, from this request I can conclude that you're here on a mission to promote mr. Kimball which is not exactly what we expect from contributors here. Max Semenik (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2015 (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.
Donnatar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So it seems that the charge of two accounts on the same IP is dropped. In addition, I do not think that I should be held accountable for other sock puppets that have no link to my IP and that charge should be dropped. I am on a mission to save a WIKI from being deleted which I feel has notability and was already approved. You cannot deny the fact that this WIKI was approved by a "WIKI" staff member after many recommendations by moderators to fix the content and references. A moderator in the current delete thread confirmed notability yet some others do not feel notability is apparent. So what is the final outcome? If this WIKI had no notability why was it approved in the first place? You have to agree that WIKI bears some responsibility on this front. Furthermore, I want to add content that will increase notability e.g. more interviews, press and a whitepaper and you are preventing this hard evidence by blocking my account and my wife's. Do the WIKI moderators who are requesting delete have an issue against Kimball given there are more 3rd party references in Kimball then in many WIKIS? Is there any prejudice against Kimball? I do not see the lack of notability with the Kimball WIKI but I am sure I can find a lack of notability with many other wikis, even the one mentioned above. I feel I have demonstrated that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption and that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what the blocked was for and I am trying to make productive contributions and my conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the Sock Puppet block)Donnatar (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You identification of an article as a wiki shows a significant lack of understanding of this website, although of course that is not relevant in terms of your block. What is relevant is that a checkuser, who does NOT depend only on identification of an IP, has determined that you have used at least twelve, and possibly fourteen accounts other than your declared one, and have used these accounts, or some of them, in discussion in an attempt to ensure the retention of an article (not a wiki). This use of multiple accounts is a blockable offence, and one you must address in any further unblock request. Incidentally, looking back at your earlier refused unblock request, please note that this website is not a democracy and makes no claim to be one. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:47, 4 August 2015 (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.
- Please understand that the whole of Wikipedia is a wiki. A page about a specific subject is not a WIKI - it is an article. Articles are not 'approved' in the sense that I think you use. An Articles for Creation submission may be rejected (as the one in question was, several times), or accepted for publication in main article space. That does not mean that the article is officially a permanent part of the encyclopaedia. It is still subject to the rules and policies, as one editor saw fit to move it into an open area, out of the protected environment of Draft space. Wikipedia as a whole bears no responsibility for the article's future. In addition, it would appear to me that you might do well to read WP:COI about conflict of interest. BTW we do not have 'moderators'. The article was nominated for deletion by an administrator, but any editor may nominate an article the same way. DGG was not acting in his capacity as an administrator by doing this, merely as an editor. Administrators (and only administrators) may delete articles, but he chose to take this one to discussion instead of deleting it. Peridon (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Donnatar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I claim to have 2 accounts from our IP, my wife's and my own and nothing more. If there are other sock puppets, as you mentioned, they are not controlled by me. Can you please give me proof that the other 14 are tied to me. I appreciate the explanation given by both Anthony and Peridon and I respect the rules of the WIKI and will abide by them. The wikipedia is a valuable source and I use it a great deal for my children, education and hobbies. This block is preventing me from adding more valuable material to the Kimball and Johnson wiki and many others, what else can I do to help resolve this issue Donnatar (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) Just looking at your editing, it is clear that you are taking part in a campaign to promote a person, along with a number of other accounts. Even if we had nothing to go on other than your editing history, and no CheckUser evidence, it would be totally implausible that you are an independent editor, unconnected to the others. (2) Whatever may be the connection or lack of connection of this account to other accounts, it is clear that you are here for promotional purposes, and that in itself means that unblocking yo would not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (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.
Donnatar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What editing are you looking at, I never edited any wiki. I only commented on the potential deletion and recommended that the moderator should take note of the other news on the hexl.com site and add it as it can improve notability. You are basing your assumption on what facts? If there is any promotion it is about telehealth news that I am pointing at to improve the notability. If this was a personal promotion then the content to be promoted would be about Richard as an individual not about the Telehealth news he has brought to market. I would indeed benefit the project since my work is about telehealth and Richard is all about telehealth so you are quieting a voice that has a substantial contribution. My contribution would be to add the additional press which would solve this matter. Donnatar (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia doesn't need single purpose advocacy accounts. Given the obvious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, your talk page access has been revoked. You can make further appeals via WP:UTRS if you want to waste more of your time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:01, 4 August 2015 (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.