User talk:Iplaws

It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Bobbobbobsss.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Of course this is a joke. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20020069333.html is just a copy of the patent from the USPTO I wrote and issued on Predictive snooping and cannot be copyrighted by someone else.

Copyright issue with Predictive snooping

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Predictive snooping, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20020069333.html. As a copyright violation, Predictive snooping appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Predictive snooping has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Predictive snooping. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Predictive snooping, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Whpq 21:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Creation of "Predictive Snooping Technology" was essentially vandalism. -- RHaworth 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Predictive snooping

Copyright issue with Predictive snooping

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Predictive snooping, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5710906.html. As a copyright violation, Predictive snooping appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Predictive snooping has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Predictive snooping and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Predictive snooping with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Predictive snooping.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Pan Dan 20:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

76.16.65.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Bobbobbobsss". The reason given for Bobbobbobsss's block is: "spam".

Blocking administrator: Academic Challenger (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Abusive sockpuppetry. — Yamla 22:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This says to creat a new account but that doesn't sound right to me Iplaws 19:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information). You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under a more appropriate username. Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting an appropriate username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.

I'm not sure where to put this comment but I contacted Yalma by email to appeal the block on my account.

Both accounts have been used to perform edits of the exact same nature on Robert Jerome Schneider. Additionally, we know that you are at the very least using the same IP address. As such, you have clearly been violating WP:SOCK. --Yamla 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:22, 18 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

this is people history

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:44, 18 November 2016 (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.

Iplaws (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #16944 was submitted on Nov 18, 2016 18:52:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand this at all or how to fix it. I am a total novice Iplaws (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Read this, then try again. Your ability to make further appeals may be revoked if you continue to make frivolous unblock requests. MER-C 12:28, 12 May 2017 (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.