User talk:VGoldoni

Hey Tojo, good to see you haven't given up yet. Your work on dopamine was reasonable. With regards to the epidemiology content you removed on Parkinson's disease, please have another try at discussing the changes openly on the talk page before riding roughshod through established content. Simply shouting "no evidence" in an edit summary is not helpful. Perhaps the evidence exists but is hard to find. Rather, support every point you make with accessible references. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 22 February 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

no factual basis, banned solely after adding one referenced fact and eliminating superfluous wording

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not provide reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet. -- Yamla 22:56, 22 February 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

in order to justify the ban it says "see contributions for evidence". There is no evidence. There is nothing to respond to. There is nothing to prove wrong. The banning took place quite arbitrarily, solely after adding one referenced fact and eliminating superfluous wording. That is not evidence that justifies banning. If it did, nearly everyone on Wikipedia would be banned. Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. The contributions prove that the two administrators involved have been frequent editors of the article in question, and are involved are constantly blocking and reverting almost everyone. One of them, Chris73 added all of the pictures, and reverts or blocks anyone that tries to remove them. Jfdwolff has been editing the article longer than anyone and blocks and reverts anyone that is not an ally that tries to rever what he has added. Administrators that have a vested interest in the article should not be able to abuse the process by blocking or reverting at will in order to maintain their edits.

Decline reason:

Your unusual knowledge of the supposed longterm history of two editors' contributions fits with your being a sockpuppet of someone. -- Sandstein 21:26, 23 February 2007 (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.