User talk:Olawe

Aloha

Regarding your query from the state terrorism page. I think the reason may be that since the article is semi-protected, any accounts editing it (even those with names) have to be older than 4 days. You may have clearance to edit the talk page of that article only. Is the "Olawe" account less than 4 days old?BernardL (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the logs show, the "Olawe" account was created on the 10th (UTC). So, Olawe, you could wait a few days, and you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles like this. Or you could make suggestions on the article talk page, and if they're good, the old hands will follow them. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I created my account only about 2 days ago. Does this mean I can edit in two days henceforth? I do not quite understand the reason for the "semi-protection." From what I read the action was maybe was not right? But thank you for explaining it to me. Much appreicated.Olawe (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, most wiki pages are not semi protected. There is no need to wait in order to contribute to wiki. You are obviously not obsessed with only one topic and undoubtedly would be interested in contributing elsewhere. And I'm sure you'll find it more interesting to contriube in your own words rather than merely reverting to someone elses version... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Olawe, 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! William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You appear to be an SPA that exists for no reason other than reverting Allegations... This isn't helpful. I've temporarily blocked you. Please find a broader spectrum of interests, or at least some original content to contribute, when you block expires William M. Connolley (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block me? What is SPA? You have reverted many times, sir. I reverted one time. I find you are very petty man to block me and have no discussion about the problem. That is very bad. Who make you the dictator? I think you block me only because you are edit warring and AI am not on your side. That is very desperate of you to have block me and then do another revert. You never explain or talk to anyone. I think you are a big bully. No good reason to block me when I am helping to make the article better. That is why you also don't want me to edit on this article: only because I do not agree with you. I will report you to others.Olawe (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my first paragraph to have ben repeated William M. Connolley (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I apologize for my earlier attacks. I was just very mad. I won't do that again. I will not take this personal. The reason I request this block be taken off is because it is a partisan block by Mr. Connolley who is my opponent in a dispute on the article. I did contribue something original, fixing a problem on the Talk page. My understanding is that admins are not allowed to block people when they are involved in the conflict, too. If I did something wrong I want a nuetral admin to inform me and teach me as I am open to learning from any mistakes.}}

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

You are unblocked for procedural reasons. Per WP:BP, "administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". It appears that the blocking administrator is in disagreement with you about the contents of the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States‎, and blocked you because of edits you made to that article. This is not an endorsement of any of your edits, and does not prevent uninvolved administrators from re-blocking you for the same reasons as the original blocking administrator.

Request handled by: Sandstein 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me still edit. I have a lot to contribute and will do my best. I still do not know the reasons for the block. I can't find any policy reasons for it. But if I am doing something againts policy I will hope that someone will tell me so I can learn better.Olawe (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: Welcome back to wikipedia. You have been blocked by a totalitarian administrator for no other reason than a "hunch" that you - a newcomer- are what is referred to as a Single Purpose Account (SPA). Perhaps you are very busy in your life (like me) and your editing practices are constrained by your available time to edit in that 1,2,3 subjects that most interest you. Or perhaps, you are beginning with one article that perks your interest but will eventually migrate to others. Doesn’t matter, you are “suspected” to be a puppet of an editor that the said admin obviously dislikes. That is your crime- therefore you must be somehow muzzled. In any witch-hunt, extreme measures are required. You have discovered that carrying the title of "administrator" at wikipedia does not preclude bias or unfairness. You have discovered that the prescribed rules of conduct for administraotrs are totally lacking in credibility, because the actual behavior of a significant number of admins contraverts these rules and is in fact tolerated. Once again, welcome to wikipedia. There are those, like Merzbow above, who excuse the administrator's actions on the basis of "emergency measures" but the problem is that the said administrator has not been competent enough to realize the point at which "emergency measures" should give way to proactive and inclusive methods to resolve a conflict. I think that this opportunity had already existed after the banning of user:Stone Put to the Sky, quite some time ago, and much unnecessary totalitarian purging, and play-acting and grandstanding by editors like Merzbow, has ensued, for no valid reason. Yes, indeed welcome back to wikipedia, good luck and take care!BernardL (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: I second BernardL. q (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining to me what is happening, BernardL. You are right that I am very busy. I think it is very unfair of Mr. Connoley to try to muzzle me. Do administrators have the right to act in this way? I undertand he is breaking the rules when he does that to me. Who blocks administrators who break the rules of Wikipedia? I think Mr. Connoely should be blocked by the other administrators who are not totalitarian.Olawe (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]