User talk:Brutonlegend

Welcome! Hello, Brutonlegend, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like The chronology of ezra 7, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jarkeld (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Chronology of Ezra 7

The article The Chronology of Ezra 7 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book; no evidence it meets the inclusion standard WP:NBOOK.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Tim Song (talk) 09:04, 11 April 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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I have made a page that is textually unbiased but is faulty only because it currently lacks enough reference material. I have been labeled a "sockpuppet," but for whom I am not currently aware. Also, I do not have multiple accounts but only one account. I dont feel that I have actually dealt with any individual that has imputed this status on me in a biased fashion or in a way that should impute thier block status upon myself. However, if I'm wrong, please relieve me from being blocked as I now understand the nature of this status and how to avoid it.Brutonlegend (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your first edit was to the talk page of one of Trabucogold's other sockpuppets. And based on a review of your other edits I feel this block is justified. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 20 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My statements were intended to assess the futility of the discussion. The closing remarks were to show the impossibility of "continuing the discussion" in the manner it was being conducted. It is now clear that I did not succeed in making this point. If anything, I only sought to restore an appropriate environment on the site by carrying the talk elsewhere.

Also, please note that the suspicions that were suggested by my accusers, who I am prevented from facing, are inconclusive and that I hold them to be untrue. Therefore, they should be governed, as I have, for stating those opinions as fact. Their assertions should have no weight in deciding my status. As a new editor to Wikipedia, I only wished to experiment with the editing functions on a topic relevant to the article of my own, which I was yet to write.Brutonlegend (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The nature and style of your very first edit under this username makes it quite clear that you are familiar with procedures on wikipedia. Your statement that you are a new user appears therefore difficult to defend. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:28, 25 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. My first request to be unblocked was answered as follows: "Your first edit (see link) was to the talk page of one of Trabucogold's other sockpuppets." The second request was answered as follows: The nature and style of your very first edit under this username makes it quite clear that you are familiar with procedures on wikipedia."

My status as a blocked user is based on the accusation that I am a "sockpuppet." Im not sure how the fact that I edited a talk page belonging to a blocked individual is sufficient to give me this title except by straying from this basis and comparing my article topic to the viewpoints expressed by that user. With all due respect, and with no accusation, that would be erroneous. Also, please note that my first edit was not perfect. Notice the failure to apply the line break properly more than once. If any, I see that the language was one having prior knowledge of the topic, definitely not Wikipedia's procedures. I have seen insufficient pages remain posted for longer than mine, which though written properly and objectively, did not survive for but 7 days.

Also, all possibilities that I am a sockpuppet have been exhausted rather than the possibility that I am not having any weight at all. Between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty", which rule of law should apply on an online encyclopedia? I feel that one person's speculation has prevailed over the reasoning of others. For these reasons, I again respectfully request that I be unblocked. Even if this request is not granted, nor agreed with at all, is there another way this can be resolved?Brutonlegend (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not merely the fact that your live edits are to exactly the same page(s) as a proven sock, but a quick trip through the deleted edits shows the same thing! Multiple editors all trying to create the same arcane topics? That's either all the same person, or a bunch of people who are in contact with each other - it's called the duck test On top of that, we are an anarcho-syndicalist collective - the so-called "rule of law" is for wikilawyers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 1 May 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.

{{unblock|Hello. If the material in this request is too lengthy or toilsome to read carefully, please have more than one administrator review my situation. It is not my intention to confuse the reader with lengthy doubts and considerations, as I now must work to make clear that I am being accused with strong, but false, suppositions. I dont see the relevancy of my edits to a "proven sockpuppet's" page having weight to my determining my status, especially the importance of that person being "proven"--whether live or deleted. What same thing exactly is revealed in what deleted edits? Allow me to clarify that I had an article and made a copy of that article, then had the original deleted with the aid and understanding of a helping administrator. If that is what was meant, it was to capitalize the title of the article and the book it was about, which was never an issue before. Since then, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet for other reasons. The first, the second, and now the third are posted above. Notice that they are a series of unrelated accusations, touching on different grounds which I have at least sufficiently reputed. You may want to consider what is so "arcane" about the topic of my choosing, as millions without Wikipedia and many within it, seek information regarding it. My topic, though relayed in an objective style thus far, has been negatively criticized. An ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person reading that statement can only assume that the topic is generally unwelcome on Wikipedia. Im not playing ignorant, but is this true? Also, I looked up the article anarcho-syndicalism, what Wilkins above said was the way of this free and open online encyclopedia, and I saw that it stated, "Moreover, anarcho-syndicalists believe that...[workers] should not have bosses or "business agents"; rather, the workers should be able to make all the decisions that affect them themselves." If a rule of law is rejected by Wikipedia administration, which I do not question their right to do, then why am I being adjudicated by it? With all respect intended, I ask, why are the two rules of law I mentioned referred to as "so-called," and why is "rule of law" surrounded by quotation marks? Does this mean there are no rules, or that individual administrators are free choose one of their liking? If a wikilawyer is powerless then to argue my case, then what purpose does any lawyer serve? Considering the reasons in this post and in the previous ones, I again respectfully request to be unblocked. Along with any more new reasons why I am still a proven sockpuppet, please include answers to the questions I have asked so that I may rest my arguments and not continue bothering "administration." Brutonlegend (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

More than one admin has reviewed your requests. They have all come to the same conclusion, that you have been rightfully blocked. I have revoked your ability to edit this page. If you wish to appeal this further you can do so by emailing arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org . Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]