Flagtheerror
|
Lara❤Love 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Lara❤Love 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
edit
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DanaUllman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Flag, if you are going to protest the block I suggest that you mail East718 directly instead of mailing Dana. LOL, you were blocked on 3 April, you mailed Dana, and Dana didn't mention anything until 3 hours after he saw the sock case that I linked on ANI on 11 April? looooooool, oh, man, sorry if I ignore your pleas, but this is sooooooo suspicious. Good luck getting unblocked after this. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, ok, now I am a bit calmer. I'll give you the good faith advice anyways, who knows, maybe I'm being too harsh here.
- So, you mailed Dana before 11 April, and Dana mailed East718, and Dana didn't say anything on wiki until 11 April. Well, Flag, I suggest that you mail East718 directly, or that you use the {{unblock}} template to ask for an unblock. Either on the mail or on the unblock template you should explain why you are not a meatpuppet according to WP:SOCK and why you are not a single purpose account. You should also promise that you will try to use your account for other purposes other than furthering Dana's theories or biography, and respect wikipedia policies like WP:COI and either disclose any link you might have to Dana Ullman that could cause a conflict of interest or avoid editing his article altogether.
- Notice that you might have to use the unblock template anyways even if you mail East718 directly, since it would be better if the unblock reasons are posted here for other admins to check in case you get into trouble again. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Flag, in case you don't know how to mail the admin that blocked you, you can mail him by cliking on this link, and then click on the "E-mail this user" link on the left of the page. Then you can type your message and send it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric Naval - I don't even really know how to use/navigate Wikipedia to be honest with you. I have no agenda whatsoever, in regards to Dana, only to homeopathy which I will defend, and had only posted about 7 entries (once I figured out this thing) to defend him - and that is because on the various homeopathic websites I've been on, he's much admired and I've read all his books. That was it. Nothing more. I said nothing offensive, and only wanted to point out that it was odd there was so much vitriolic stuff being spewed in his direction, that it gave one pause. That said, after I was censored or blocked or whatever you call it, I emailed Dana directly, not knowing what or how to fix the unblock. He very diplomatically suggested I contact the original blocker and explain my case; I tried, but couldn't figure the thing out. So I gave up. I have NEVER, as someone has accused me of lately, tried to start up again with another username. Also, this is probably the last time I'm going to be contributing anything on wikipedia (this note to you) since this experience has been awful. Also to clear up one thing - I'm not a "guy/he"; I'm a woman. Just a gender thing. Anyhow if you can somehow get this to whomever blocked me (East 718), I'd truly appreciate it, if only to clear up the fact that I've not posted since (other than this missive) and don't ever intend to. Why he/she blocked me I still can't figure out. Anyhow this wikipedia thing is too circuitous and complicated. All the best Enric and thank you for forwarding this on! I'll look for your response.
- (I'm not sure if your block is still active, maybe it was lifted by the admin that blocked you)
- Huh, you posted a few more than 7 entries, if you count things like this. Also, I refuse to feel guilty for your block since I didn't even notice you were blocked until a few days after it happened. Ídem for feeling guilty for WP:BITE biting newcomers, since I still think that you used User:Drwein and User:Bifurcationland before this one and that you came to wikipedia in order to "protect" homeopathy articles from bias after Dana posted on a web forum asking people to help him on doing so. And the block was not caused by my actions, but by your behaviour here and here where you make bad faith accussations against other editors and say that there was no proof of Dana misrepresenting sources, which is completely at odds with the evidence presented at that page and shows a clear problem to assess the situation neutrally.
- Sorry for using the wrong gender, my mistake.
- If you ever feel like coming back to wikipedia, I suggest that you stand clear from disruptive editors like Dana and that you avoid topics like homeopathy where you have strong ideas that might prevent you from editing neutrally. There are 3 million articles on wikipedia covering a wide range of topics, so I'm sure that you can find one article that you like that is more peaceful and less controversial than Homeopathy. I suggest you this random article link that will bring you every time you click it to a different article chosen at random. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Enric - well maybe it was more than 7 entries - I honestly can't remember. But NO, NO and again NO :=) for emphasis (smile), I did not use any other username - the ones you mention above or any other. If you ask the administrators of wikipedia, and I'm not sure of any kind of computer data inputting stuff, but they can tell you I only have the one server address and my location is from Canada as they would see. I don't know where the others come from so you can check that out with them. I have NEVER used another name on this site. Just to clarify that. AND I never accused you of anything - I thought you were trying to help me and I had found a friendly voice to pass on my concerns to East 718 since I couldn't get through to him/her. Why in the world did you think I was blaming you for anything? As to my "bad faith accusations" I have no idea what you mean other than I felt erroneous info was posted about Dana, stuff that we followers of homeopathy knew not to be true and I just wanted to correct them. Why is it not okay to correct something false and it's okay to leave the false stuff online for all to see? I don't get that but then again I don't get this wikipedia thing where there isn't any freedom of press so to speak. Anyhow thanks for clearing things up for me and hopefully passing my messge to East 718. It doesn't matter whether he/she unblocks me or not, since I don't intend to come back again -- to post -- at least; it's just all too weird. I mayn read stuff on wikipedia but I definitely won't be posting. Again Enric, please be assured I didn't go under any other user name, for what that's worth. And sincerely, thanks again for all your help in clearing things up. Have a great day.
- If you can't see any bad faith accusation on sentences like "Your motives are more than questionnable"[1] and on "But by continuing this push to continually chastise, criticize and denounce his claims, well, one tends to wonder why."[2], then I'd rather not enter on picking apart the more subtle bad faith assumptions on the rest of sentences on the two posts that got you blocked.
- This place works on WP:V verifiable WP:RS reliable published sources, cited on a WP:NPOV neutral point of view manner giving WP:WEIGHT due weight to views. Unfortunately for followers of homeopathy, it has nothing to do with "what followers of homeopathy know to be true" unless that knowledge happens to comply with wikipedia policies for inclusion on articles.
- And again, I think that you were already unblocked, try to make an edit to the sandbox. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)