User talk:Amanda d ireland

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist:

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).

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

Request reason:

Absolutely ridiculous to block me for providing accurate information that many readers have missed - David and Jill met on March 28 1967, this information can be cited to 16 Magazine from 1965 - I have the very copy that states this. I DO not have multiple accounts you are pointing to my younger brothers account for agreeing with my edit, this is unfair, inaccurate and bias, can't two people from the same household have a Wikipedia account? There is no policy that suggests we can't. Amanda d ireland (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Absolutely amazing that we have a policy link for this that was written many years ago. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 11 November 2015 (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.

@Ohnoitsjamie:

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).

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

Request reason:

This policy suggests that I am making up that I have other individuals in my household and putting the blame on someone else, which is not the case. I came across this information and was being trolled by another user who kept undoing the correct information I was putting out there, how does this result in being blocked? Plus, you were clearly not aware of the info I edited that is accurate and printed in the 16 magazine from 1965, so before pulling out policies why not review the whole case as to why 'Materialscientist' blocked me in the first place - for editing a page and providing accurate information and then being blocked because another user in my household backed me up. Instead of being sarcastic I suggest you actually review it and be fair. Amanda d ireland (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Evidence points to two alleged sockpuppets. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that one is your brother, who is the other?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:16, 12 November 2015 (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.

You refer to "another user who kept undoing the correct information I was putting out there" (my emphasis) but this account has never made more than one edit to any article, there is no other editor who has ever reverted more than one edit by this account, and this account has only ever made two edits to articles. That must mean that you have made other edits using one or more other accounts.
Whether or not all the accounts involved were operated by the same person, they have been used collectively to edit-war. Edit-warring is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and using several accounts to do it is also contrary to policy, whether those accounts are operated by one person or by different people working in collaboration.
It is really odd how, when two or more editors in the same family are wrongly blocked for sockpuppetry, the one who informs us of the mistake is almost always the older sibling of a younger brother. Very occasionally we read the other editor was sister, husband, son, or cousin, or even a brother not stated to be younger, but for some reason these occasions are enormously outnumbered by cases where it was a younger brother. I am intrigued to know why the editors requesting to be unblocked always tell us that the brother was younger: it is not at all clear to me why anyone would think that is relevant, and I don't remember ever, even once being told whether a sister or cousin was younger, older, or the same age, but for some reason if the "other" editor was a brother, the younger status is virtually always specified. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]