User talk:Edgeform

Hi Edgeform - we seem to editing the same article. I didn't understand the removal of the information on the Origin of Minds book. I undid the changes but perhaps we should discuss on page's discussion page? Wagonlease (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allman reference on Bingham page

Could you specify a reference for Roger Bingham's interest in John Allman's work? Also I am adding a section to the page's Talk to discuss that paragraph. Caromk (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neurorel. Thank you. Edhubbard (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an unblock on Edgeform's behalf

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).

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

Request reason:

I am posting here, on Edgeform's behalf, to request that the block be lifted. I believe that the block on the basis of an SPI was made in error, and I never want to see a good faith user wrongly blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Requesting reappraisal of a block for a discussion of the issues. Please feel free to contact me at User talk:Tryptofish if you have any questions about any of this. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests must come from the user themself. Not trying to be bureaucratic, but they aren't WP:GAB compliant (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 24 February 2012 (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.

Woops, sorry. Thanks anyway, and I do understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet of any of the editors working on this page. I am not a sock puppet of anyone connected to any of the disruptive edits on this page or on other entries related to this page. I believe that the editors working on this page have improved the page and that my contributions are constructive and within wiki guidelines. I appreciate the efforts of Tryptofish and HelloAnyong to protect the entries. There is confusion being deliberately created by someone but not by me.Edgeform (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Edgeform[reply]

Decline reason:

Having looked at the SPI report and listened to the points made by the blocking admin and by other sysops here, I'm declining this request as I see no substantive reason (in policy or in the SPI evidence) to overturn the block--Cailil ^talk 15:22, 26 February 2012 (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.

The reviewing administrator may want to be aware of the discussion at WP:AN#Requesting an unblock on another user's behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words are chosen carefully - and effectively admit that they are a sockpuppet, just not related to the specific words chosen. You are, of course, aware that you may not WP:SOCK, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere where this person "effectively admit[s] that they are a sockpuppet". What I see is an educated person trying to use words carefully, without accusing anyone else. (We all know what happens when a blocked person points fingers at someone else, don't we?) Risker (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Further to the above and much discussion I have unblocked. User:Edgeform will doubtless be aware that they are likely to be subject of additional community scrutiny for the foreseeable future, and doubtless will continue to make good collegiate contributions as before this affair commenced. Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And don't forget to read This discussion. –BuickCentury Driver 02:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]