118:. Tendentious editing, rampant sockpuppetry, and false accusations of bias alone can get an editor banned, let alone stretching such disruption over a period of months. If you wish to be unblock, cease the unilateral additions, futile sockpuppetry, and useless accusations, and start learning about consensus-making and civility. Note that this is only an indefinite block, not a permanent ban. The block will be lifted when you agree to edit civilly and constructive according to the above terms, and follow the terms. As for now, block upheld. --
18:
543:
648:
616:
657:. Notice that Google's "769" is in fact only 114 pages. Then check out the items on that page and elsewhere--notice that your search terms gives a positive result every time I mention anyone named Dave or David--and in the final case, a postitive result when I don't even do that, based purely on "Dave Winer" being in my blogroll:
360:"Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue."
669:
Does anyone object if I move the above discussion of Betsy's web posting habits to
Nirelan's Talk page? I don't see that it's relevant to the improvement of this article. I haven't noticed any other editors questioning Betsy's ability to keep a neutral tone in her contributions, though I'm aware that
649:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=dave+winer&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=betsydevine.weblogger.com&as_rights=&safe=images
617:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=dave+winer&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=betsydevine.weblogger.com&as_rights=&safe=images
465:
I apologize for reporting you and warning you. I was asked to step in and help with the situation. I looked briefly at the article and at your edits and assumed that you were just another jerk adding crap to piss people off. I was wrong. I should have taken more time to examine the situation, and
141:
Physicq I agree when it comes to consensus, but the member that requested I be blocked did not disscuss anything she reverted in the talk page. Please look at the inventors section in the Dave Winer talk page. How can I be the one that is not forming a consensus when I tried to talk about it and she
625:
Nirelan, Dave Winer is on my blogroll--on the sidebar of my blog. That means that every page my blogware creates and Google knows about--every individual post I ever made, every department, every page with multiple posts for one day--will have the name "Dave Winer." Yes, after 4 years of blogging,
238:
for what makes a piece of software notable. It's not just you; about a thousand articles a day are deleted from
Knowledge. Yes, you can add anything, but that doesn't mean it stays in. Also, since your user name is "NIreland" and the article is about "Nick Ireland", it's assumed that you are
443:
Yes, I feel exactly the same as the person above. In order for you to make such drastic changes in articles you will, in the future, need to site all your sources. I will watch very closely at the few articles that you seem to have problems with and perhaps together we can fairly improve their
614:
C'mon, Betsy has made it impossible for anyone not to agree. I played nice and did change anything for a while in the hopes that we could have a real discussion, but I will not be pushed around because someone that has made over 700 blog posts about Dave Winer calls me biased.
642:
Nirelan, how about if you prove just a few of your many allegations, instead of asking us to disprove them for you. For example, please share with us a link to the 700th blog post I made that mentioned Dave Winer. 01:50, 24 February 2007
381:"I removed it becuase they cleaned up the article. The template says that should be left there until the disscussion is resolved and it was definatily resolved because the only person that felt the article should be changed is now happy.
153:
are the same edits he had been banned for making on Feb, 9, with 6 reverts then to his credit against the consensus of many other editors besides me. Group consensus about why those edits are POV rather than factual can be seen in this
497:
that he made a mistake because (as stated above) he looked only "briefly" at the article. So I don't think it's appropriate to leave this apology standing with no explanation, since Ganfon later decided it was a mistake.
444:
quality. If you wish to vandalize articles by erasing entire sections without cause and making bold claims as to why you feel entitled to do so, you will be subsequently reported for your vandalism. Have a nice day.
425:
Please raise your objections in the talk pages of articles where you have an issue with the way things are phrased or how the article is organized, not by blanking entire sections or articles without discussion.
407:
I'm afraid this is not how the process goes. It's not up to you to decide when the debate gets closed. Normally the person who closes it is an administrator, and he follows the steps given in
305:: You tagged the article for speedy deletion due to it being blatant advertising, which the article is not. If you have issues with the factuality of the article, you can use the appropriate
655:
242:
You can argue against deletion, by writing your argument on the article's
Articles for Deletion page, but deleting the Articles for Deletion template won't stop the process. --
291:
if you believe that the article should be deleted. Note that I am not stating my opinion on whether the article should be deleted, just what procedure you need to follow. --
103:
Please explain what rule I broke. I proved that everything I posted was true and
Ryulong obviously only blocked me for a friend that dosen't like the information I posted.
221:
I noticed that you deleted the
Articles for Deletion marker. You can argue against deletion, but deleting the Articles for Deletion tag does not help your case. --
626:
that is probably about 700 pages by now. Please don't take people's efforts to maintain normal
Knowledge standards as a personal effort to "push you around."
114:
You were blocked for continuing to add information that consensus has determined that should not be added. If you want the specific rule that you broke, it is
194:
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.
364:
Since your contribution record is so short, you must be a new user. Please try to help us take your views seriously by following the expected policy steps.
493:
that he (Nirelan) wanted to "improve" the article but "fanboys" of Dave Winer were trying to block him. After taking a closer look, Ganfon
306:
58:
179:
588:
under this and other usernames. If you wish to be unblocked, please use {{unblock|Your statement as to why you should be unblocked}}—
552:. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
128:
434:
310:
288:
230:
It's not enough for an article to be interesting. It has to be notable. "Notable" has specific meaning on
Knowledge. See
397:
53:
549:
408:
347:
nominated the article for deletion, apparently as a favor to you, and you participated in the actual deletion debate.
30:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
31:
494:
25:
72:
654:
That link simply doesn't show what you claim it does. OK, go to the last page of those Google results--
466:
I did not and for that I am sorry. I see that you're in fact trying to help, and not hurt
Knowledge.
489:
made this apology to
Nirelan after a hasty glance at a very few of his edits, and in the context of
385:
374:
120:
685:
660:
627:
499:
431:
163:
450:
638:
Betsy show me one of the posts Google found that is only there due to the blogroll. -- Nirelan
595:
565:
490:
473:
273:
256:
188:
675:
412:
365:
284:
150:
684:
Thank, Ed. I am moving this argument from Dave Winer's talk page to
Nirelan' talk page.
427:
344:
314:
292:
235:
209:
445:
411:. Please put the banner back on, and you can still avoid being cited for vandalism.
336:
231:
205:
115:
589:
559:
389:
309:. Or you can opt to request that the whole article be deleted by listing it in an
36:
204:
I hate to have to tell you this, but Knowledge doesn't accept original work. See
678:
663:
630:
468:
283:
because the article is not blatant advertising. As I replied on the article's
671:
658:
585:
542:
524:
517:
340:
325:
280:
263:
243:
222:
213:
159:
350:
Note that removal of the deletion banner is cited as vandalism by WP:VANDAL:
674:
feels that Dave Winer is not a good judge of his own contributions.
688:
604:
574:
502:
479:
455:
438:
415:
368:
317:
295:
246:
225:
216:
166:
135:
142:
had me banned because she dosen't like the information? -- Nirelan
520:
486:
541:
16:
584:
I have blocked you indefinitely for solely edit warring on
176:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
196:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
555:
548:
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the
514:
332:
302:
155:
86:
82:
76:
67:
63:
49:
45:
41:
24:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
324:Please restore the AfD banner you removed from
162:has objected to blocking Nirelan's vandalism.
149:The edits Nirelan is defending on Feb. 18 at
8:
530:made on February 9 2007 to Dave Winer": -->
331:Hello Nirelan. I don't understand why you
287:, you will need to list the article in
234:for what makes a web page notable, and
610:Moved here from Dave Winer's talk page
7:
409:Knowledge:Guide_to_deletion#Closure
14:
158:. Not one other person who edits
647:Besty, look at the Google link.
1:
689:04:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
679:03:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
664:02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
631:01:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
605:00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
167:01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
136:01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
575:05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
503:20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
480:21:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
456:19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
439:04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
416:03:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
369:03:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
318:17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
296:08:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
28:, who declined the request.
705:
247:08:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
239:writing about yourself.
226:08:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
217:08:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
609:
180:guide to appealing blocks
151:Talk:Dave_Winer#Inventors
491:Nirelan's misstatements
546:
362:
279:tag that you added to
21:
545:
352:
73:change block settings
20:
554:The duration of the
513:Regarding reversions
375:User_talk:EdJohnston
547:
355:Avoidant vandalism
307:disputed templates
22:
550:three-revert rule
402:
388:comment added by
696:
601:
598:
592:
571:
568:
562:
538:
537:
533:
476:
471:
453:
448:
403:26 January 2007"
401:
382:
339:banner from the
278:
272:
261:
255:
193:
187:
131:
123:
92:
90:
79:
61:
59:deleted contribs
19:
704:
703:
699:
698:
697:
695:
694:
693:
612:
599:
596:
590:
582:
577:
569:
566:
560:
553:
539:
535:
531:
529:
528:
485:Clarification:
474:
469:
463:
451:
446:
423:
383:
343:article, after
329:
276:
270:
267:
259:
253:
199:
191:
185:
184:, then use the
173:
129:
121:
105:
80:
70:
56:
39:
32:blocking policy
17:
12:
11:
5:
702:
700:
692:
691:
686:betsythedevine
667:
666:
661:betsythedevine
645:
644:
636:
635:
634:
633:
628:betsythedevine
611:
608:
581:
578:
558:is 96 hours. —
540:
527:
511:
510:
508:
506:
505:
500:betsythedevine
462:
459:
422:
419:
405:
404:
357:
345:User:Random832
328:
322:
321:
320:
269:I removed the
266:
250:
201:
174:
172:
171:
170:
169:
164:betsythedevine
144:
143:
112:
108:Decline reason
101:
97:Request reason
94:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
701:
690:
687:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:
673:
665:
662:
659:
656:
653:
652:
651:
650:
641:
640:
639:
632:
629:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
618:
607:
606:
602:
593:
587:
579:
576:
572:
563:
557:
551:
544:
534:
526:
522:
519:
515:
512:
509:
504:
501:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
477:
472:
460:
458:
457:
454:
449:
441:
440:
436:
433:
429:
420:
418:
417:
414:
410:
399:
395:
391:
387:
380:
379:
378:
377:you replied:
376:
371:
370:
367:
361:
358:
356:
351:
348:
346:
342:
338:
334:
327:
323:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
265:
258:
251:
249:
248:
245:
240:
237:
233:
228:
227:
224:
219:
218:
215:
212:. Sorry. --
211:
207:
202:
198:
197:
190:
183:
181:
168:
165:
161:
157:
152:
148:
147:
146:
145:
140:
139:
138:
137:
133:
132:
125:
124:
117:
111:
109:
104:
100:
98:
93:
88:
84:
78:
74:
69:
65:
60:
55:
51:
50:global blocks
47:
46:active blocks
43:
38:
33:
29:
27:
26:administrator
668:
646:
637:
613:
583:
507:
467:
464:
442:
424:
406:
393:
384:— Preceding
372:
363:
359:
354:
353:
349:
330:
303:your message
268:
241:
229:
220:
203:
200:
195:
177:
175:
127:
119:
113:
107:
106:
102:
96:
95:
68:creation log
35:
23:
262:tagging of
208:, and also
676:EdJohnston
672:User:Danja
619:- Nirelan
586:Dave Winer
525:Dave Winer
518:February 9
413:EdJohnston
366:EdJohnston
341:Dave Winer
326:Dave Winer
281:Dave Winer
264:Dave Winer
244:John Nagle
223:John Nagle
214:John Nagle
160:Dave Winer
64:filter log
461:Apologies
428:Random832
421:TALK page
315:Gogo Dodo
293:Gogo Dodo
285:talk page
178:read the
116:consensus
83:checkuser
42:block log
516:made on
495:admitted
398:contribs
386:unsigned
54:contribs
591:Ryūlóng
561:Ryūlóng
390:Nirelan
333:removed
274:db-spam
257:db-spam
236:WP:SOFT
210:WP:VAIN
189:unblock
122:physicq
77:unblock
37:Nirelan
487:Ganfon
447:Tester
232:WP:WEB
206:WP:NOR
643:(UTC)
580:Block
556:block
313:. --
252:Your
182:first
532:edit
521:2007
394:talk
335:the
156:diff
523:to
475:fon
470:Gan
373:On
337:AfD
311:AfD
301:Re
289:AfD
87:log
34:).
603:)
573:)
452:er
437:)
426:--
400:)
396:•
277:}}
271:{{
260:}}
254:{{
192:}}
186:{{
134:)
110::
99::
81:•
75:•
71:•
66:•
62:•
57:•
52:•
48:•
44:•
600:龍
597:竜
594:(
570:龍
567:竜
564:(
536:]
435:c
432:t
430:(
392:(
130:c
126:(
91:)
89:)
85:(
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.