User talk:Neurofish

Welcome

Hello, Neurofish! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Crusio (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand why I was blocked in the first place!

Decline reason:

The reason for your block can be found in the message above. TN X Man 18:34, 28 August 2009 (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 have not provided a reason for unblocking. –xeno^talk 18:30, 28 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

okay, got it. I join wikipedia. I make no edits to any articles. I Ask for an editor's help. I am quickly labelled a sock. I request more help. I am blocked. What am I missing?

Decline reason:

Please make your unblock requests from your original account. Smashville^talk 18:43, 28 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

None given.

Decline reason:

As Smashville said above. You were not blocked for vandalism, rather, you were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. TN X Man 19:48, 1 September 2009 (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 my original account. What is the disruption I caused to justify these draconian actions? There was no vandalism. Literaturegeek claims I vandalized a page, but in fact I updated a reference to a more recent journal article and removed biased text, see the talk page. Neurofish (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Neurofish[reply]

How could I abuse mutliple accounts if there was no abuse? None of the admins is looking into the fundamental issues involved, they are just dismissing my requests without bothering to look into the issues. They find the first reason to decline my request and run with it. The evidence submitted by Literageek just refers to vandalism.Neurofish (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Neurofish[reply]

Unfortunately, your editing pattern is very similar to that of a user who has been blocked, and not very much like the pattern of a brand new user. Now that your request has been reviewed three times, in my opinion, you've had sufficient reviews of your request. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]