User talk:95.241.252.9

Ditto
This block is people being vindictive. An explanation is not repetition of the same comments that need explaning.

Why not try:

editing for evasion of a block on another IP address, apparently evading blocks on accounts,


 * What IP? This idea is based on what evidence?


 * The Ip was (insert ip here) the entries are (insert entries here). The style of writing includes (insert style of writing here).

and disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit warring,


 * An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.


 * What would be an example of this poster's "warring" entries?


 * The warring entries are (insert entries here).

persistent editing to promote a point of view,


 * Read the above comments. What point of view are those comments supporting? (Bear in mind, this is in the context of a talk page discussion, not the main page.)


 * The POV concern is (insert POV concern here).

and persistent refusal to accept consensus.


 * The consensus is (insert consensus here) and your comment

Stupid block here
They are both Italian. One works in Brussels. I got the same email.

Way to drive contributors away with this nonsense. Look at what Guillaume is trying to make disappear from the talk page for something interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boundary_2&oldid=500768739 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.191.16 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

 * I see no disruptive editing by Guillaume2303. I see only a concerted effort to deal with persistent disruption by a user who is determined to force through the inclusion of unsourced content to promote a particular point of view, with persistent edit warring, accusations of bad faith, refusal to accept consensus, and so on. (On the subject of the content being unsourced, perhaps I can remind you that you have stated that you have "inferred" it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That response (i.e., the “you said” in the detail above) is cited from another IP address (194.78.195.29), not person to whom you were communicating the above response (which was: 95.241.252.9). You might want to answer that one again, and address it to the correct party.

2.	Contrary to what you say, I see no evidence of bad faith on Guillaume2303's part. "Vandalism" does not meant anything that you happen to disagree with.


 * This is the discussion that Guillaume has censored from the talk page:


 * 	This is how the discussion has developed, pasted from the archived version. I'll add comments at the end:
 * ''The editor reads a text and then contacts the author--as soon as this occurs, the author is in the social network of the editor. As the entry reads, no texts come from outside the editor's social circle. Initiating contact makes no difference. 194.78.195.29 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And for each an d every journal, the editor is in contact with the authors, so according to your definition, every journal only publishes articles from authors in the editor's social circle. In any case, you are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and I'm done trying to talk to you. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Most journals receive submissions from anyone (whether or not s/he has a previous social contact with the editor). This is not the case with b2 and the others here mentioned. In the case of such a newsletter (academic-themed publication), if the author is unknown to the editor, there is no chance of publication 194.78.195.29 (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No references currently listed would be removed from the page, which is clarified in the archived text.


 * b2 apparently does not receive "over the transom" submissions. The key point here above is that if an author is unknown to the editor, his or her work cannot be published. Call that the social network of the editor or call it something else. This publication practice differentiates b2 and the other journals listed from what could be understood as standard journals.
 * In a sense it is a semantic issue, though "newsletter" instead of "academic journal" is a bit of a stretch, as the texts are peer-reviewed. Those concepts should be in mind when revising the main page to make this clear. 95.241.252.9 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

“you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines).
 * This is what WP says about removing other contributors' discussions from talk pages:

3.	The answer to your question "why is the IP I was using blocked?" is already given on the talk page of that IP address. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

editing for evasion of a block on another IP address, apparently evading blocks on accounts,


 * What IP? This idea is based on what evidence?

and disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit warring,


 * An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.


 * There has been no overriding of anyone's contributions in the posts I have made. I have reverted Guillaiume's deletions of in-progress talk-page discussions. What would be an example of this poster's "warring" entries?

persistent editing to promote a point of view,


 * Read the above comments. What point of view are those comments supporting? (Bear in mind, this is in the context of a talk page discussion, not the main page.)

and persistent refusal to accept consensus.


 * There has been a discussion on the talk page regarding various ways to improve how this journal's submission policy is described. This seems to be the purpose of talk pages: When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.


 * Moreover: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.


 * and


 * Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism.

So, why have these contributions been removed and why has this address been blocked? 95.241.252.9 (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING
Declined requests for unblock cannot be removed for the duration of your block. Additionally, please understand that it is accepted convention for new messages to be posted at the bottom of talk pages.  Tide  rolls 10:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(I've move this unblock request to the end, as talk pages read from top to bottom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

They are both Italian. One works in Brussels. I got the same email.

Way to drive contributors away with this nonsense. Look at what Guillaume is trying to make disappear from the talk page for something interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.191.16 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)