User talk:OD.Vision

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no reason my account should be blocked. I'm providing accurate sources and information for the Optometry page. Information is being misrepresented and needs to be changed. I've put messages on the article's talk page and properly cited all sources. To be clear, please monitor Chrisieboy's use of the Optometry page as a personal source for inaccurate information. Please note how Optometrists are not all considered ophthalmic opticians; only previously in the UK. I did alter some information before knowing the proper rules of Wikipedia, but since then I have abided by the rules to make the description more accurate. I simply don't think it's proper to generalize definitions/terms when it's inappropriate. Please note source: http://www.college-optometrists.org/en/college/about-optometry/What_is_an_Optometrist.cfm. This clearly, and up-date, describes Optometrists previously known as ophthalmic opticians. It is also a UK source. I only ask that information be allowed to be edited on the Optometry page. At this point, Chrisieboy seems to think there is a UK bias and monopoly on Optometry's worldy definition. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You are not allowed to use new accounts to avoid the block on another account. This is sockpuppeting and it is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Regardless of your intentions, you are not allowed to use multiple accounts in this way. only (talk) 16:55, 19 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

What do you call a person who personalizes an article according to his own misinformed agenda? I would personally worry more about falsified information than your so called sockpuppeting nonsense. Grow up and get real. The facts are wrong and nothing is being allowed as an edit. Why was I even blocked in the first place? I was simply adding accuracy to an article that was not completely factual. Of course I'm going to make my statement heard and open another account. The idea that this misguided information can remain on this website is pathetic and wrong. OD.Vision (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You should request an unblock from your original account, this account's access to this page has been revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 06:39, 20 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.