User talk:Orangeshop

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Larry Lea has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tommy! [message] 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Larry Lea, you may be blocked from editing. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Larry Lea, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the reason I have been blocked is for making legal threats through my edits and therefore violating the Wikipedia Policies and Procedures. The legal threats I posted claim that there should be no further additions or deletions to the current edited page and insinuated legal action if not followed. I understand that instead of posting this threat I should have first disputed the situation with the community or its members going thru the dispute resolution procedures. I could have also sent in a polite report of the legal problem. I should have not taken things into my own hands as this is a public wiki page and I should have read the policies and procedures to posting such threats. I have read the policy and the procedures for disputes about postings and I, if permitted to edit, will not post such threats in any of my further edits thru Wikipedia and will always follow the dispute resolution procedures and all Wikipedia Polices and Procedures. The reason I have been making these edits is in good action to help the individual whose page I have been editing. Dr. Larry Lea who has asked me to edit with corrections and not have further misrepresentations of his life and I agreed to edit and post corrections to his biography. I apologize for my actions and ask that you would please unblock my account. Thank You

Decline reason:

In order to be unblocked you are required, on this page, to completely and unreservedly withdraw any threat or suggestion of any form of litigation, referring to the threat made by yourself on the Larry Lea page. Also, you must accept that neither you nor Larry ea own the page in question, and neither you, nor he, nor any of his sponsors or backers haveany editorial rights to the content of the page, save only those edits granted to any wikipedia editor.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:50, 18 August 2010 (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.

A couple of things about your unblock request: First, you still have not explicitly withdrawn the violation of WP:NLT, nor agreed to strike the offending posts using <s>...</s> if unblocked; second, you have now opened up a whole new can of worms: WP:COI and WP:OR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can of worms had already been opened, so I was surprised not to see it addressed in the unblock request. Not to mention WP:OWN. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well as striking the post mentioned, perhaps it would be a welcome gesture of goodwill to include an offer to not directly edit Larry Lea but propose changes on the talk page (considering the I was editing for a friend issue)? With recent improvements to sources there appears little that could be contested as lacking reliable sources, so I would expect such requests to be minimal or for additional sources and biographical facts. Fæ (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again, I apologize for not withdrawing the violation, I don't know how. Please send me instructions on how I may be able to resolve this situation. I would like to be able to propose changes to the talk page as a last resort and to be able to make future additions to Wikipedia in other areas that may need additional assistance.

Decline reason:

one unblock at a time, please. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (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.

WP:DOLT asks that we don't let policies like WP:NLT lead to editing cluelessly and adversely affecting some innocent person's life. Considering the content which was blanked, I strongly suggest WP:DOLT is a very relevant policy in this case. IainUK talk 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the page wasn't blanked. It was replaced with copyvio content. This change also violated several other Wikipedia policies. The warning points to these policies and asks the editor to read them.

Secondly, as a result of this, two editors with no connection to the subject did in fact take it upon themselves to look at the article and make substantial improvements to it, such that there is no longer any unsourced BLP material. These two editors did not always agree which meant that a lot of thought went into the changes. Far from the result being a worse article, it is much improved. But I am yet to be convinced that Orangeshop will be satisfied until his "official" version is restored.

So I really don't think WP:DOLT applies in this case. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Good point. I trust your judgement, just thought it should be considered. IainUK talk 06:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair dos. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to help request

Based on your recent request "Please send me instructions on how I may be able to resolve this situation" you may need some support to understand what to do next. I suggest the following steps would help to get you unblocked if you are now prepared to comply with the guidance referenced above:

Take some time to review the guidance of:
Wikipedia:Appealing a block

Wikipedia:No legal threats

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - you may only edit for yourself and represent your own opinion

Wikipedia:Copyright violations
Write up a new unblock request addressing the additional points above (if you agree with them) to explain how you would like to withdraw the legal threat made and how future edits will comply with the guidelines. Pay particular attention to the reasons given for the unblock request being declined. You may wish to volunteer to not editing Larry Lea in future, though you would be welcome to make proposals for change on the talk page. If you are unclear about some of the reasons for your block or how best to interpret the guidelines listed please ask for further clarification here. The unblock request does not have to be long, but must address all the points raised.
If your second request fails, do ask for an explanation if there are reasons you do not understand. Unreasonable repeated requests for an unblock are discouraged, so it is important to ensure that your unblock request is genuinely written and you have taken on-board the reasons for the block and unblock denial.

Please note, I do not claim to be an expert advisor so I welcome further suggestions from other editors for how you should proceed and ask that they chip in with some advice if I have missed some points above. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Note further that your Talk Page is not blocked. You can still edit it. Can I suggest that if you still feel the article can be improved, you make a request here? I am watching this page and will consider any requests for improvement (as I am sure will others). A few positive suggestions (even if in the end they aren't incorporated) would certainly be looked on favourably in any future unblock request. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]