User talk:John Dowsett

Welcome!

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Betamax may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

manufacturers honoured to replace broken, and stolen machines that spare part alone could not fix) .Betamax had a duel reason for decommissioning there video reorder as Betamax also became Video-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Betamax may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

0/Beta4)can record approx 4rs 20mins on PAL and Secam modles, and 6hrs 15mins on NTSC modles (Phase Alernatng Line, and National Television System Commitee and "Sequential Colour with Memory" (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Betamax, you may be blocked from editing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Betacam, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for the same behavior that got you blocked last time. Basically, you waited out your block, then came back and tried to reinsert the same original research. This is your last chance--if you do the same thing again after this block expires, the next block will be indefinite. In the meantime, I suggest reading WP:V and WP:OR, to of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here John Dowsett (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't get it, do you? We are not going to insert your wall of text where you ask us to, and if you attempt to do so after your block expires you will be immediately and indefinitely blocked without further warning. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:31, 11 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here John Dowsett (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason for unblocking given. You have been told that unless you produce reliable independent sources for your long statement it will NOT be accepted. If you go on posting this stuff and requesting unblocking without giving a reason, your block is likely to be changed to indefinite. Peridon (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2013 (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 is your only chance: if you post another unblock request that doesn't give a clear, specific, policy based reason to unblock you, I will remove your ability to edit this talk page. If you post that Betamax original research here again, I'm just going to go ahead and block you indefinitely without access to this talk page. This is a waste of everyone else's time. The fact that you don't understand or refuse to follow our rules is no longer our problem. Read WP:OR, read WP:V, ask if you don't understand, but stop trying to violate what is basically Wikipedia's most fundamental policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]