User talk:Astutescholar

Welcome!

Hello, Astutescholar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oxford Round Table. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR violation on Oxford Round Table; COI editing; possible sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have researched the Oxford Round Table and put accurate facts. The users that requested block are just there to defame the Oxford Round Table and put sources that ONLY reflect opinions. I will gladly ask you look through the sources and can even send you books written on this Oxford round Table, the purely non-profit organization. It makes no sense to block the truth of the Organization, please look through www.oxfordroundtable.com for accurate information Astutescholar (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You broke the three revert rule. Whether or not you were in the right is irrelevant. — Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would just like to add the correct information, should I contact someone else to do that until I get unblocked?

Decline reason:

Definitely not; asking somebody else to edit on your behalf while you are blocked is frowned upon just as much as direct avoidance of block using sockpuppet acounts. Just wait until your block expires, and then discuss your contributions at the appropriate talk page instead of revert warring. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (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.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock # 1143009 removed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Rjd0060 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for block evasion and continued violation of the three-revert rule immediately after release from previous block for the same issue . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was not an edit war and I did not break the 3RR rule, I was simply posting on the discussion board and adding the facts. I had not removed any of the information from the previous users. If I was at a mistake, please let me know exactly what was wrong here. Thanks

Decline reason:

At least one of your edits appears to have misrepresented a source. We don't look kindly on that here, and as a scholar you should know better. — Blueboy 96 22:00, 21 September 2008 (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.

Note from blocking admin

User continued edit war here. Lack of ownership of the conflict, and block evasion by creating WP:SPA Educationatlarge (talk · contribs) who also participated in this edit war is especially troubling. I'm considering taking this to AN/I and proposing a ban. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you said, however, I am new to wikipedia and just looking for a way to contribute to the discussion and add credible sources. If you would like, I can show you all the sources for all the edits I have made. None have been false, and I have attended as well as researched the Oxford Round Table for many years, so I was only adding the correct information, and I left all the false opinions and blog posts from the "Chronicle" in the article. Wikipedia is supposed to give people accurate information, not paint a false light of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astutescholar (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 September 2008

You were only free to do so in a constructive manner and since you did not choose to do that - instead chose quite the contrary - the privilege has been temporarily (at this point) taken away to prevent further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how I could have been more constructive other than posting accurate sources and adding to the discussion board. The users who are editing that entry just undid my changes in the same manner. I was merely adding the credible information. Also, since invitations to the Oxford Round Table are being sent out, there will be no accurate information now. Also the defamatory remarks are going to stay up there? I have proof from blogs that there are two users who had planned on creating a wikipedia entry to defame the Oxford Round Table. My question is, could I get the owner of the "Oxford Round Table" to contest a delete on this entry all together, rather than allowing an entry full of blog posts as citations and inaccurate defamatory information? This takes away from the purpose of wikipedia all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astutescholar (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 September 2008

Please stop adding multiple {{unblock}} requests to your talk page.
Wikipedia works on consensus, discussion and verifiability. Unilaterally deciding what is right for Wikipedia is unacceptable. For what it's worth, I've protected Oxford Round Table from editing by new users to stop your sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I believe that User:Toddst1 is not taking my statements into consideration. I have stated many reasons with evidence and would like to have another admin look into this. If you prevent Oxford Round Table from being edited, it only gives me reason to believe that you are working with User:Academic38 or User:Nomoskedasticity. I have only looked to the facts, and I have nothing but evidence. If you wanted a neutral view, why don't you contact the organizer and owner of Oxford Round Table and see the facts for yourself rather than ban innocent people and let the people putting false remarks stay on the main page. Theres even a website www.oxfordroundtable.com which has the accurate information. It makes no sense to ban this type of information. Astutescholar (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are here to enforce rules - not settle content disputes. That part was up to you, but thanks to your abuse of Wikipedia, it is left to established Wikipedians. As far as your accusation of being in cahoots with Nomo, check this edit, then review WP:Civil. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you User:Toddst1 already had some activity with User:Nomoskedasticity, then you know what she is capable of. Also, by "enforcing the rules", you are banning the truth on Oxford Round Table for a month. That is not really reasonable. If you can have my unblock reviewed, I will be able to post to the discussion and put up the accurate sources, but is one month really reasonable? Astutescholar (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request has been listed at Requests for Unblock since you made the first one. Another admin will be by shortly to review. However, given your block evasion and continued edit warring, I do not believe a shorter block is in order at all. I'll leave that to the reviewing admin to validate. I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on article deletion: An article doesn't have a single owner who can delete it. You could nominate the article for deletion using the usual processes, but I strongly recommend you not to - such a nomination could be seen as a frivolous attempt to delete the page because you couldn't have your way in editing it, and summarily closed. (And please note that I am making absolutely no judgement on the validity of your edits - I haven't even seen them.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1] and [2] this account is obviously created by PigeonPiece. That the two accounts have made substantially identical edits is clear evidence. I have extended the block to indefinite. If you wish to make an unblock request, please do so from your first account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]