User talk:Proofplus

Why the automatic block?

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

64.134.28.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Proofplus". The reason given for Proofplus's block is: "Block evasion".

Blocking administrator: Barek (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Accepted, since original blocking admin unblocked user. Steven Walling • talk 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single Wiki rule was broken. Why is it when facts are contributed to Wiki on CueCat the same users BLOCK and UNDO?

This is MY ONLY ACCOUNT PERIOD. Thats verifiable?

{{unblock | reason=NO WIKI RULES BROKEN [[User:Proofplus|Proofplus]] ([[User talk:Proofplus#top|talk]]) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)}}

Hello, why is every single update to Cuecat rejected and the users blocked? I have ONLY this account I have provided facts Is this normal

Unblock please (Proofplus (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

{{unblock | reason=NO RULES BROKEN ProofPlus Professional Researcher 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)}}

How am I able to find out if I am unblocked?

I posted a suggestion to the Cuecat record and was blocked.

This is my ONLY account

Thank YOU ADMINS

Thank you Admins for the Unblock. Wiki at it's Best! (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Please recognize me as a legit users Barek and others. Many Thanks

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barek?

Barek, should we have a dialog as to why you blocked my posts? I also read from the records this is a regular occurance with you on the topic of cuecat. Should we have a discussion so you can be included on any edits to the cuecat file? Have submitted suggestions under the discussion page for Cuecat. Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Near as I can tell, you have no active blocks on your account. If you're still unable to post, please copy and paste the exact error message you receive. This should help admins to track down the cause of the problem. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ultraexactzz, it finally was figured out by Matthew Bowker. MANY THANKS guys. Wiki at it best, you are a credit to Wiki. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CueCat article. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Barek for your reply. I have posted where you have suggested, but I do have only one reply, and it was your comments on my poor grammer, and theories of me being other people (I think, you were hard to understand). Anyway, thanks for the dialog, but I do not get the comment of MeatPuppet. Was that an inslut on me? Please clarify.

The comments on grammar were not made by me, I've replied at the other discussion to point that out. That comment was by Bbb23, and appears more related to the evidence of the grammar style being additional behavioral evidence that suggests a connection to the prior two editors.

The terms meatpuppet and sockpuppet are not an insult, but instead description of the perceived relationship that suggests that this account is either controlled by the same person as one or both of the other accounts (ie: sockpuppet) or a user with a strong association who is working on behalf of the other account holders (ie: meatpuppets) - see WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT for further explaination of these terms. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the terms clarification. I am a single user with a single account (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Barek, can you help? I posted some useful updates to the cue cat facts record, and the fellow Kbb23 undid them, and others came to the rescue and help me fix the posting. But, in working on the next round of makeing the record factual, I went to source one of the entities owned by Digital Convergence called Net Talk Live and found the same exact pattern of Kbb23 deleting record and Cullen seconding the motion and that has happened on ALL digital convergence related articles. This is a pattern, and seems to be one user - two user names and deleting all possible related to this company and its products or other companies. Isn't this against the goodwill of Wiki? I know I am new, but it is there in the record to see. Same log in time differences and all. Here is what I sent them

"Wow, Cullen, I just went back and relooked at records that would be relevant to my update of cue cat facts and I find that BOTH you and Bbb23 edited the Net Talk Live record the exact same way you did to the Cue cat file and in the same span of time. Whats the connection here? You have asserted that you and Bbb23 are in no way connected and you took offense when I pointed that out on Cue cat record and then here is the SAME thing on Net Talk live record. Can you help me understand how you TWO randomly edited the same two records? The same span of time and same deleting good facts and links??" ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions Barek? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cue Cat invites for comments sent

I have notified each commentor and poster on the top of cue cat to look over my suggestions for updates to the file. Please join the discussion. Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 20:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Cue cat record - reason for my questions and suggestions

The following is to state my interest in cue cat and the incorrect records posted here.

Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Username

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Proofplus) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to refer to this account being operated on behalf of a company or organisation, as opposed to simply you.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ProofPlus has been my professional researcher user name since 2002 in financial circles and such. I have used it and will continue to do so, since I have used it now for 9 years about to be 10. Hope this helps but I dont see how using my nick I have used for so long being a violation of anything. But I appreciate the input and will monitor the reponse here.

Futher point I missed. I am an individual not a company. I do what I do from my laptop when running kids back and forth to school, soccer, band and gym, but I see no relevance here to that(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

In that case, it's all good. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you much, Bushranger . I find are the names very odd and they make me blush. LOL (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

Hey Bushranger, can you look at the Cue cat discussion and see the topic where Kbb23 and Cullen make the same edist to any and all records for digital convergence? Look up net talk live and cue cat. Seems weird to me that two different users make the same edits to different records totally but interconnect to the history of this company???/ ANy suggestions??? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all on the Cue Cat record update

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

cue cat edits

Hello guys, thanks for all the help, pointers and encouragement on the cuecat edit. I have made them. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Proofplus. You have new messages at Danger's talk page.
Message added 22:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Danger ^{High voltage!} 22:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so on. Danger ^{High voltage!} 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proofplus. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Codie award

Hello,

As I promised you earlier today, I returned from work and prepared an addition to the CueCat article about the CueCat software winning a 2001 Codie award. When I went to add it to the article, I discovered that another editor, C.Fred, had already added it. I expanded it a bit, made it a separate paragraph, and fleshed out the reference. C. Fred deserves most of the credit, though, because that editor beat me to it. So, you can see that experienced editors here are willing to work with you when you make a reasonable request. Again, I ask you to please withdraw the unjust accusations that you made against Bbb23 and myself. We have no axes to grind about the CueCat. We have no biases - pro or con. Our only goal here is to make Wikipedia an even better encyclopedia than it already is. We do this by bringing in new information, and also my making sure that new information is presented and referenced properly and neutrally. If Wikipedia becomes a gossip site, an advertising catalog and a forum for people to beat the drum for their personal passions and causes, then it will cease to be an encyclopedia with credibility, and nearly 11 years of enormously successful work will go down the drain. If you could see the garbage that people try to add to Wikipedia, then perhaps you would understand our motivations a bit better. Protecting and improving the encyclopedia is our only motivation here, I promise you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen, I am still learning and trying my best and I want to contribute and do good and provide a great resource that is factual. Sorry for all my bumps and warts, but I will get it right. Now I am going to try to tackle the record and improve the inaccurate entries. Many thanks and I promise I will get better. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

CULLEN, can you look at the Cue Cat discussion and see my topic of "WOW Bbb23? Cue Cat Net Talk and you go around deleting all records of this company???What happened?" and offer any suggestions of why Kbb23 may be doing this?

Cue cat article error list posted for review

I have posted factual errors on the cue cat record. I want to do a great job and get comments and guidance. So let me know what you think and how to do this better. Thanks guys. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS ODD AND RECURRING

I have found that both Kbb23 and Cullen go around to all the various records about cue cat or digital convergence and in the same order delete good facts and references and try to cloud the information. Here is what I sent Cullen. At first I saw on Bbb23 and then I saw Cullen was there too? "Wow, Cullen, I just went back and relooked at records that would be relevant to my update of cue cat facts and I find that BOTH you and Bbb23 edited the Net Talk Live record the exact same way you did to the Cue cat file and in the same span of time. Whats the connection here? You have asserted that you and Bbb23 are in no way connected and you took offense when I pointed that out on Cue cat record and then here is the SAME thing on Net Talk live record. Can you help me understand how you TWO randomly edited the same two records? The same span of time and same deleting good facts and links??" ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to CueCat. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO Velella, all correction to facts have been posted on DIscussion page for two weeks, thanks for the heads up, but they have been posted. Please review the comments there. Only slight wording fact changes have been made are in line with all links. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 20:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Velella all sited sources are the current sources being used. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 20:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cullen and Bbb23, Yes I saw and commented. You were in violation of Wiki rules on individuals and liable claims. You know they dont look kindly on that and the reference you posted not only did not state those comments but are directly against wiki rules. Nice stretch.

Play nice boys (boy) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Proofplus. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 20:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I was the one editing the record first, bbb23 is the one who was undoing things left and right. I am updating the record according to the facts and getting help from other users who are better suited than me. I know bbb23 methods and starts a ban stuff by sreacming, but do us all a favor and read the record and comments, its all there, No one has been undoing excpet bbb23 and cullen or vice versa. Thanks for the input but I could use some help so read the record ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Undoing, redoing, it doesn't matter. If it's disruptive, it's disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Proofplus. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Help me out here. bb23 and cullen were breaking the wiki policy on inflamatory comments of a living person. The rules say, take it down right away. I followed those rules, then notifed both bb23 cullen and then it keps popping back, so how does that mean disruptive editing? Should of I have avoide the wiki rules of delete it immediately and then just let it stand? Which one is right? Please help, but this is really confusing. Seems anyone can post anything and then when its inflamatory, a good doer like me deletes it and the inflamatory poster yells wrong and the follow the rules person is in the wrong? How is that? And How is that Healthly for wiki? ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Which living person are you referring to regarding the inflammatory comments? —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan, the inventor listed of cue cat, digital convergence and cues and such ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page: the statements in question were direct quotes. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 22:11, 11 November 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

am not disruptiveProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

From my review of this page, Talk:CueCat and your edits to CueCat, I have concluded that the blocking admin's statement below is right on the money. If you wish to make another request for unblocking, I would suggest that you first read the guide to get an idea of what you should say in an unblock request. —DoRD (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (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.

Also, you need to fix your signature by going to your preferences and unchecking the box marked "Treat the above as wiki markup." —DoRD (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To admins:

This started over me not agreeing with edits of others and them psoting inflamatory statements regarding a living person on a record here.

My edits have all been minor and factual but this record has a long history of being controversial.

While tyring to prove my facts I see that I am blocked.

All my edits were clean up I removed as per wiki policy inflamatory eidts posted by others and have engaged in dialog to show my points of inclusion

NOw yes I am new, but just because I am new does not mean I am wrong. Please review the edits and my comments and you will see I have been civil and right.

ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Note from blocking admin to reviewing admin This user has serious competence issues. Despite the efforts of User:C.Fred, this user fails to understand Wikipedia's basic WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:AGF and WP:NLT policies. The user continues to insist on removing content and refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes in understanding of policy. User continues to refer to other's edits as "inflamatory" and considers their edits true despite the fact that there are reliable sources for the material they are removing. The user does not appear to posses the interest nor ability to understand and edit collaboratively.--v/r - T P 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TO REVIWEING ADMINS: I have followed the rules, presented my case, and just because I am new does NOT MEAN I am wrong. facts are facts. I just read also DONT BITE THE NEWCOMERS and that is what is happening. I ventured into a file where individuals are not providing facts and using broken links and just false statements in the record. All I am and have done is cleaned up. ANd I have posted on the talk and discussion pages for weeks. But these indivduals still UNDO. Today was over inflamatory statements posted about an inventor (living person) and they stated he was "Conartist" and "Psycho" and those are CLEARLY again wiki policies, therefore a systmatic attack against me has begun. But just because someone know hows to block and keep this from being discussed does NOT make it right, READ THE RECORD. My edits were factual and correcting records. PLEASE UNBLOCK ME, I care about my work and am NOT biased and did not delete ugly references just the dangerous against the rules one. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

TO TPARIS, did you actually read the article and post and why the complaints were made? I served as well, just as you and I know justice, just like the USAF requires. I took action and have NOT mis used the rules, but it is EASY for those who have been on here to complain, since they know the channels, but this is just a WAY to hsut down edits. LOOK AT THE RECORD and see just how many times bbb23 and Cullen have done this. Its a pattern. Wiki clearly states: DO NOT BITE THE NEWCOMERS. Did you read what was posted and the issue was over before you acted?

Bbb23 has already had an issue with me as a woman and being jewish and has used this on me before and you bought into it. yes I am upset and have been doing my best, but I know you cannot post on an article someone is "Conartist" and "psyhco" that is NOT allowed.

regardless what you have bought into, without reading the full record, I did what was right and longer users did not like and sold you on a ban. Please remove.

WARNING the following is on the cue cat record, a record for a device and it violates Wiki policy: READ SNIP>>> a "massive flop" and a "fiasco".[6] In the wake of the bankruptcy of Digital Convergence, inventor J. Jovan Philyaw (later known as J. Hutton Pulitzer), was accused of "conartistry". His attempt to re-invent himself in the wake of the company's collapse has been called "entertainingly psycho".[4] THIS MUST BE REMOVEDProofPlus Professional Researcher

Tangent: As was already explained to you, that is within policy, as the descriptions are direct quotations from the sources.

That said, you are blocked. You need to focus more on demonstrating that you understand and are willing to abide by Wikipedia policies and not on edits that need made to an article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This violates wiki policy

a "massive flop" and a "fiasco".[6] In the wake of the bankruptcy of Digital Convergence, inventor J. Jovan Philyaw (later known as J. Hutton Pulitzer), was accused of "conartistry". His attempt to re-invent himself in the wake of the company's collapse has been called "entertainingly psycho".[4] ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Another unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

VIOLATION OF WIKI RULES ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

sourced statements that an idea was a commercial flop and everyone lost their shirts is not a breach of rules. Saying that you are a disruptive editor is not a breach of rules. Please directly address your behaviour and how you intend to modify it if you wish to be unblocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2011 (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.

See my record, there are entires that directly violate Wiki "Living Person Rules"

ProofPlus Professional Researcher 22:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

unjust block please unblock ProofPlus Professional Researcher 6:34 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Repeated nonsensical requests for unblock will not get you unblocked. Nor, for that matter, will using special:emailuser to spam uninvolved administrators like me. I am now revoking your talkpage access due to your misuse of the unblock template. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2011 (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.

Hello, as you can clearly see, I was right about my edits to the record by bbb23 and Cullen.

There was wrong entires to the CueCat record and I listed them for weeks.

Additionally, as you can tell, once I was blocked here again today I contacted JIMBO and asked for a review ASAP, especially of the items that CLEARLY voliated the "living persons" policy. AND as you can see on my edits I was making simple - easy word, and reference updates and bb23 and cullen attacked and started undoing those eits.

But if someone does not understand doing what is right and NOT allowing the behavior of bbb23 and Cullen, then the system is broken. As you can tell, I am new to Wiki, but I know who is needed to know.

This record of history is corrupted and I am focusing on fixing it and as you can CLEARLY see by the reversal of bbb23 and cullens inflamatory rules breaking, I was in the right.

So, other than an act of JIMBO, can I please have my account and rights unblocked. Look over my edits and see just how simple and just they were.

Thank you for looking over this at a higher level.

DONT BITE THE NEWCOMERS

ProofPlus Professional Researcher 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) ProofPlus Professional Researcher 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC))